State v. Horne
2017 Ohio 7539
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jayme E. Horne was indicted on two counts of burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(2)) after surveillance showed an intruder entering the Klaases' home through a small porch window and removing money.
- The Klaases lived next to Horne's mother; Horne frequently visited and knew where the Klaases kept a purse and wallet.
- Video from June 21 and June 27, 2016 showed a similarly sized person approach from the direction of Horne's bedroom, enter through the porch window, search near the couch/floor where the purse/wallet were kept, take money, and exit the same way.
- Police executed a search warrant at Horne's residence and recovered clothing and a cell phone matching the footage, a syringe, and observed track marks and a foot tattoo on Horne.
- State sought to admit "other acts" evidence under Evid.R. 404(B): (1) prior instance where Rosemary caught Horne reaching into her purse and Horne’s promise to repay; and (2) syringe/track marks to show drug use as motive. Trial court admitted the evidence with limiting instructions.
- Jury convicted Horne on both burglary counts; trial court imposed an aggregate seven-year prison sentence. Horne appealed, challenging admission of the other-acts evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of drug use (syringe, track marks) under Evid.R. 404(B) as proof of motive | Drug-use evidence is relevant to show motive to steal and thus motive to commit burglary; admissible for noncharacter purpose | Horne: drug evidence irrelevant to burglary (not charged with theft) and unduly prejudicial; only serves to show bad character | Court: Admitted as probative of motive (motive to steal money equals motive to burglarize to steal); probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instructions mitigate risk. Appeal denied. |
| Admissibility of prior act (Rosemary catching Horne reaching in purse) under Evid.R. 404(B) for identity/modus operandi | Prior purse-reaching tends to show identity and a distinct modus operandi (targeting purse/wallet locations) and is thus relevant | Horne: prior act is irrelevant to identity; impulsive, not similar enough, improperly offered to show propensity to steal | Court: Prior act shares common features with burglaries (knowledge of where valuables kept; targeted areas); admissible to identify perpetrator and show modus operandi; limiting instructions reduce prejudice. Appeal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finnerty v. State, 45 Ohio St.3d 104 (Ohio 1989) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- Morris v. State, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review)
- Williams v. State, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 2012) (three-part test for admissibility of other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
- Lowe v. State, 69 Ohio St.3d 527 (Ohio 1994) (requirement of substantial proof other acts were committed by defendant for Evid.R. 404(B))
- Tibbetts v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 146 (Ohio 2001) (drug addiction evidence may be admissible to show motive to steal)
- Jones v. State, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 2012) (presumption that jury follows limiting instructions)
- Bowman v. State, 144 Ohio App.3d 179 (Ohio Ct. App.) (prejudice must substantially outweigh probative value to exclude evidence)