State v. McDaniel, 168 N.E.3d 910

Background

Defendant Anthony McDaniel lived with a girlfriend and her roommate; the roommate discovered a 17‑minute video of herself partially undressed recorded on McDaniel’s phone.
McDaniel claimed the recording was accidental and that he intended to record his girlfriend (who testified she had consented); the central issue at trial was McDaniel’s intent.
During defense counsel’s cross‑examination the roommate was asked about anything else that disturbed her and testified McDaniel “was on probation in two different counties for exposing himself on different occasions.”
The state then introduced certified copies of two prior public‑indecency convictions under Evid.R. 404(B), asserting they showed absence of mistake (i.e., intent).
The jury convicted McDaniel of voyeurism; on appeal he argued the 404(B) admission was impermissible propensity evidence and that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior convictions under Evid.R. 404(B)	The prior public‑indecency convictions are admissible to show absence of mistake (intent to record).	The convictions are impermissible propensity evidence unrelated in time/circumstance to the charged voyeurism; admission violated Evid.R. 404(B).	Trial court erred in admitting the certified conviction records under Evid.R. 404(B) because they were not sufficiently related to show intent rather than propensity.
Impact of defense counsel’s cross‑examination (“opening the door”)	N/A (state relied on cross‑examination to justify further evidence)	Defense argued error notwithstanding the exchange; alternatively, the opening‑the‑door doctrine was implicated.	The court held defense counsel’s question opened the door to the roommate’s testimony about the convictions, so her testimony was admissible; but that did not justify admitting certified conviction records under 404(B).
Harmless‑error from 404(B) admission	Any error was harmless because the jury already learned of the convictions from the roommate’s testimony.	The certified records materially increased prejudice (details, affidavits, use in cross and closing), so error was not harmless.	Majority: error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury already knew of the convictions from the roommate’s testimony; conviction affirmed. Dissent: would find prejudice and reverse/remand.
Manifest weight of the evidence	The evidence, including victim testimony and video, supports the conviction.	McDaniel argued the jury should have believed his accidental‑recording explanation; conviction is against manifest weight.	Court found the verdict was not against the manifest weight; credibility was for the jury, so conviction stands.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hartman, 161 N.E.3d 651 (Ohio 2020) (clarifies framework for assessing other‑acts evidence and distinguishes permissible intent evidence from impermissible propensity evidence)
State v. Williams, 983 N.E.2d 1278 (Ohio 2012) (applies multi‑step analysis for Evid.R. 404(B) admissibility)
State v. O’Connell, 153 N.E.3d 771 (1st Dist. 2020) (discusses Rule 404(B)’s purpose to guard against propensity inferences)