State v. Kryling, 2023 Ohio 1921

Appellant Christian Kryling was indicted for aggravated trafficking in drugs based on a January 27, 2021 controlled buy where a confidential informant (C.I.) purchased methamphetamine; the buy was audio-recorded and the substance later confirmed as methamphetamine by BCI testing.
While in custody after arrest, Kryling made recorded phone calls to A.B.; those calls included both admissions about the specific sale and statements referencing other drug sales and participants.
At trial the state played the recordings over Kryling’s objection that portions constituted improper “other acts” evidence under Evid.R. 404(B); the state argued the statements were party admissions under Evid.R. 801(D)(2).
The trial court admitted the recordings in full, the jury convicted Kryling, and the trial court sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment (plus unrelated post-release-control revocation).
On appeal Kryling limited his challenge to specific portions of the jail-call recordings that referenced other drug sales; the Sixth District held those portions were "other acts" under Evid.R. 404(B), the state failed to comply with Evid.R. 404(B)(2) notice requirements, admission was error, but the error was harmless given the remaining evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recorded jail calls should be analyzed only as party admissions under Evid.R. 801(D)(2) (so 404(B) inapplicable)	Recordings are statements by Kryling offered against him and thus non‑hearsay party admissions; 801(D)(2) controls and precludes a 404(B) objection	Portions of the calls reference separate, unrelated drug sales and are classic “other acts” evidence barred by Evid.R. 404(B)	Court: 801(D)(2) does not automatically trump 404(B); some statements were indeed "other acts" subject to 404(B) analysis
Whether the state satisfied Evid.R. 404(B)(2) when offering the other‑acts statements	N/A (state did not invoke a 404(B) exception at trial but relied on 801(D)(2))	The state failed to provide the written/particularized notice and articulate a permitted non‑character purpose under Evid.R. 404(B)(2)	Court: State failed to comply with Evid.R. 404(B)(2); admission of other‑acts statements was error
If error, whether it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Error did not affect verdict because independent, strong evidence established guilt (covert buy audio, detective identification, BCI confirmation, unchallenged admissions)	Admission of similar other‑acts evidence could be prejudicial, but here the remaining evidence was overwhelming	Court: Error was harmless; conviction affirmed

State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214 (Ohio 2020) (discusses limits on other‑acts evidence and that such evidence cannot be used to prove disposition under Evid.R. 404(B))
State v. Smith, 162 Ohio St.3d 353 (Ohio 2020) (describes the two‑pronged relevance threshold for admitting other‑acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
State v. Worley, 164 Ohio St.3d 589 (Ohio 2021) (addresses standards of review for other‑acts admissibility and trial court discretion on probative value vs. prejudice)
State v. Rahman, 23 Ohio St.3d 146 (Ohio 1986) (harmless‑error articulations where overwhelming evidence supports guilt)
State v. Harris, 142 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio 2015) (framework for assessing whether improper evidence affected substantial rights)
Bromall v. Select Specialty Hosp. – Akron, LLC, 193 N.E.3d 609 (Ohio App. 2022) (reminds that party admissions, although non‑hearsay, remain subject to Evid.R. 401 and 403 admissibility limits)
State v. Moore, 168 N.E.3d 921 (Ohio App. 2021) (applies harmless‑error review to improper admission of other‑acts evidence)