State v. Morris (Slip Opinion), 141 Ohio St. 3d 399

Morris was charged with two counts of rape of his minor stepdaughter, S.K., under R.C. 2907.02.
The trial admitted Evid.R. 404(B) evidence including his kicking the dog, propositioning S.K.’s sister, and related mother testimony, to show motive/intent or knowledge.
Prosecutors argued the 404(B) evidence showed motive/intent and modus operandi; defense sought limiting instruction.
The jury was instructed that 404(B) evidence could be used for limited purposes only and not to prove bad character.
On remand, the Ninth District vacated Morris’s conviction for improper admission of 404(B) evidence; this Court affirmed remand for a new trial as the remedy.
The core issue is whether the improper admission was harmless and what standard governs harmless-error review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 404(B) error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	Morris argues the improper 404(B) evidence prejudiced the trial.	The state contends the evidence was harmless when tainted evidence is removed and the remaining record supports guilt.	Harmless error standard applied; no reasonable possibility the tainted evidence affected the verdict.
What is the governing standard for harmless error for 404(B) evidence—constitutional Chapman or nonconstitutional Crim.R. 52(A)?	State should apply nonconstitutional Webb framework (substantial other evidence).	Morris argues Chapman (beyond a reasonable doubt) governs when constitutional rights are implicated.	Court adopts a nonconstitutional framework but requires considering prejudice and remaining evidence; discusses Chapman as applicable only to constitutional errors.
Is new trial the appropriate remedy for improper admission of 404(B) evidence?	New trial should be affirmed due to prejudice.	A new trial remedy is appropriate where error cannot be deemed harmless.	Yes, remand for a new trial is appropriate remedy in this case.

State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 (2004-Ohio-297) (harmless error standard under Crim.R. 52(A))
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional harmless-error standard requires beyond-reasonable-doubt prejudice assessment)
State v. Bayless, 48 Ohio St.2d 73 (1976) (harmless error standard for 404(B) evidence; later vacated on other grounds)
State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391 (1976) (no reasonable possibility that improper 404(B) testimony contributed to conviction)
State v. Rahman, 28 Ohio St.3d 146 (1986) (principle: excise tainted evidence and assess remaining evidence’s strength)
State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325 (1994) (nonconstitutional harmless-error standard (substantial other evidence))