State v. Morales
2014 Ohio 362
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Morales was convicted of domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25 after joined 2008 and 2012 incidents; trial occurred in September 2012 with verdict on 2012 incident and acquittal on 2008 incident.
- The state moved in limine to exclude evidence about Vasquez’s citizenship status and potential U-visa benefits; Morales argued relevance to his defense and that it could impeach Vasquez.
- The trial court granted the in limine motion; voir dire of nine-year-old Darwin Morales was conducted and found competent to testify; Morales failed to disclose witnesses and a 2012 civil-RELATION hearing transcript prior to trial, triggering discovery sanctions.
- Vasquez testified for the state; Darwin corroborated the March 2012 incident; Morales testified in his defense; two Spanish-English interpreters assisted; witnesses were precluded on discovery grounds.
- The appellate court affirmed, addressing multiple assignments of error related to the motion in limine, child-witness competency, discovery sanctions, and the admissibility of impeachment evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of citizenship/U-visa impeachment evidence | Morales | Morales | No reversible error; exclusion upheld |
| Crim.R. 45(D) applicability to motion in limine | State | Morales | Crim.R. 45(D) does not apply; motion in limine not governed by seven-day rule |
| Competency of child witness Darwin | State | Morales | Court not abuse of discretion; Darwin competent; no plain error |
| Exclusion of defense witnesses for discovery violation | State | Morales | Trial court abused discretion by excluding witnesses but error harmless; no constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Grubb v. State, No. 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (Ohio 1986) (liminal rulings on motions in limine; final admissibility determined at trial)
- Kretz v. City of Defiance, 60 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1991) (liminal rulings may be revised; final disposition at trial)
- Maurer v. State, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 1984) (relevance of pretrial rulings; preservation of error)
- Hill v. State, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 (Ohio 1996) (evidentiary rulings; preservation and review standards)
- Clowers v. State, 134 Ohio App.3d 450 (Ohio 1999) (propensity to preserve error when limine ruling is challenged at trial)