State v. Hicks, 2020 Ohio 548

ICAC executed a search at appellant William L. Hicks Jr.'s elderly mother’s home and recovered numerous pornographic images/videos of minors from the mother’s computer; eight files formed the basis of the indictment. Appellant admitted searching for “teen lesbian” material on the mother’s computer but denied downloading child pornography.
Grand jury indicted Hicks on three second-degree counts (R.C. 2907.322(A)(1)) and five fourth-degree counts (R.C. 2907.322(A)(5)) for the eight charged files.
Before trial the court limited the State’s case-in-chief to the eight indicted files, but after defense opening statements (which emphasized lack of direct evidence and lack of knowledge/that appellant didn’t download files) the court ruled the defense had opened the door to testimony about other uncharged images under Evid.R. 404(B).
The prosecutor introduced a forensic summary (State’s Exhibit F) describing additional uncharged child-pornography images found on the mother’s computer; the actual uncharged images were not shown to the jury.
The trial court gave limiting instructions about other-acts evidence (use only for identity, intent, knowledge, absence of mistake, plan/preparation); jury convicted on all counts and Hicks received an aggregate four-year sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Evid.R. 404(B) of testimony about uncharged images found on the mother’s computer	Defense opened the door by asserting absence of knowledge/that Hicks didn’t download files; other-acts testimony is admissible for identity, knowledge, intent, absence of mistake	Admission was unfairly prejudicial and effectively propensity evidence; should be excluded under Evid.R. 403	Court affirmed admission. Trial court did not abuse discretion: defense opened door, evidence was admissible for permissible purposes under Williams three-prong test, and testimony was limited to existence/location rather than graphic display
Whether limiting instruction cured risk of unfair prejudice	Limiting instruction and the fact the images themselves were not shown minimized prejudice; juries presumed to follow instructions	Jury might nonetheless convict based on character/propensity despite instruction	Court held limiting instructions were adequate, defendant did not object to their substance, and there is a presumption the jury followed them; no showing verdict resulted from improper consideration

State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (three-prong test for admissibility of other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (trial-court Evid.R. 404(B) rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion defined)
State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 (other-acts evidence generally inadmissible to show propensity)
State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (same rule on propensity)
State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (view challenged evidence in light most favorable to proponent when evaluating prejudice)
Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 (juries are presumed to follow limiting instructions)