State v. Lotzer
2021 Ohio 3701
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On Oct. 15, 2019 police attempted a traffic stop of Lotzer; he parked, fled on foot, and officers later found methamphetamine along his flight path.
- Lotzer was indicted for aggravated possession of drugs (third-degree felony), tried July 14–15, 2020, convicted, and sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment.
- Defense filed a motion in limine to exclude recorded jail calls and a cell‑phone extraction report; the trial court reserved ruling and later admitted redacted jail calls and the LG phone extraction (with a limiting instruction).
- Key evidence: officer testimony linking Lotzer to a Leland Avenue residence and to the driver observed leaving there; jail call where Lotzer said officers found “less than a ball”; LG phone extraction with texts and selfies used to identify the phone’s user (including a September text referencing a “ball”).
- Lotzer appealed on two grounds: (1) evidentiary error—admission of improper other‑acts/non‑propensity evidence in violation of Evid.R. 403/404 and due process; and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the challenged evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of testimony tying Lotzer to Pitney/1227 Leland and to the scene was impermissible "other acts" evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) / unfairly prejudicial under Evid.R. 403 | State: testimony was relevant to identity and explained why Lotzer’s property ended up at Leland Ave.; these facts were intrinsic or admissible non‑propensity evidence | Lotzer: testimony showed prior drug involvement and relationship to Pitney and should have been excluded as other‑acts / unfairly prejudicial | Court: testimony was not 404(B) other‑acts evidence (it was intrinsic/identificatory); admission was proper |
| Whether Lotter’s jailhouse call (“less than a ball”) was inadmissible other‑acts evidence | State: the jail statement was probative of identity and guilty knowledge; not an "act" under 404(B) | Lotzer: the statement implicated prior drug use/weight and was unfairly prejudicial | Court: oral confession/statements are not "other acts" under Evid.R. 404(B); admission proper |
| Whether LG phone extraction (text referencing “ball”) was inadmissible other‑acts evidence | State: extraction was offered to identify the LG phone’s user and show meaning of street slang; relevant to identity | Lotzer: September text about a “ball” is extrinsic prior bad‑act evidence and should be excluded under Evid.R. 404(B)/403 | Court: EG 404(B) applies; phone extraction admissible for identity; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice; admission affirmed |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the admitted evidence | State: even absent objections, the evidence was admissible and any failure to object was not prejudicial | Lotzer: counsel’s failure to object to Pitney/Leland evidence was deficient and prejudicial | Court: because evidentiary rulings were correct, counsel’s alleged failures did not establish Strickland prejudice; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (2012) (announces the three‑step Evid.R. 404(B) analysis and limiting instruction practice)
- State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214 (2020) (clarifies mixed standard of review for 404(B) analyses)
- State v. Smith, 162 Ohio St.3d 353 (2020) (Evid.R. 404(B) prohibits other‑acts evidence offered only to show propensity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Patton, 74 Ohio App.3d 224 (1992) (defendant’s oral statements are not necessarily "other acts" under Evid.R. 404(B))