State v. Hignite
2015 Ohio 5204
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Darryl Hignite was indicted for one count of robbery for an alleged August 5, 2014 US Bank robbery in Warren County.
- The state notified it would introduce "other acts" evidence (photos/videos) of Hignite's September 13, 2014 attempted/actual robberies of LCNB and Chase Banks in Butler County to prove identity/modus operandi under Evid.R. 404(B); Hignite had pled guilty to those Butler County robberies.
- The state also sought to introduce a summary of an interview in which Hignite allegedly made inculpatory statements to police regarding the US Bank robbery.
- Hignite moved in limine to exclude the Butler County photos/videos and the interview summary on Evid.R. 404(B) and Evid.R. 403(A) grounds; the trial court granted both motions, excluding the evidence as unfairly prejudicial and finding a limiting instruction inadequate.
- The state appealed under Crim.R. 12(K)/R.C. 2945.67, arguing the exclusions destroyed its ability to effectively prosecute; the court of appeals treated the rulings as functionally suppressive and reviewed de novo the legal application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Butler County photos/videos under Evid.R. 404(B) and 403(A) | Photos/videos are probative of identity/modus operandi and therefore admissible; high probative value outweighs prejudice | Evidence is unfairly prejudicial; jurors will infer bad character and act in conformity despite limiting instruction | Reversed: photos/videos admissible under 404(B); trial court erred excluding them under 403(A); limiting instruction adequate |
| Admissibility of interview summary (defendant's alleged statement) | Officers may testify to defendant's out-of-court statements; such statements are not hearsay when offered against the declarant | Summary (and testimony) would import other bad acts/convictions or require prejudicial carve-ups; unreliable out-of-context | Reversed in part: summary excluded but officers may testify to defendant's statements; statements are admissible and not unfairly prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davidson, 17 Ohio St.3d 132 (Ohio 1985) (motions excluding evidence that destroy prosecution are appealable under statute)
- State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (Ohio 1986) (motion in limine generally not final, but functional equivalents may be reviewed)
- State v. Bassham, 94 Ohio St.3d 269 (Ohio 2002) (evidentiary rulings that destroy state's case are appealable)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (jurors presumed to follow limiting instructions)
- Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 1990) (same presumption that jurors follow instructions)
- State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2004) (defendant's out-of-court statements offered against him are not hearsay)