State v. Overton
2017 Ohio 8389
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Jonas L. Overton was investigated for narcotics; police executed a search of an apartment on May 9, 2016 and found drugs, a loaded firearm, a magazine, and a receipt bearing Overton’s name; a later stop produced a key to the apartment.
- A Stark County grand jury indicted Overton on two counts of drug possession (cocaine and heroin) and one count of having weapons under disability based on a 2005 cocaine-trafficking conviction.
- Defense offered to stipulate that Overton was “under disability” under R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) to avoid introducing details of the prior conviction; the trial court refused and admitted State’s Exhibit 1 (a judgment entry showing the 2005 conviction plus a four‑count, seven‑page indictment containing additional charges).
- The jury convicted on all counts and the trial court sentenced Overton to an aggregate six‑year prison term.
- On appeal Overton argued the court abused its discretion by refusing the stipulation and admitting prejudicial details of the prior conviction; the Fifth District agreed and vacated the convictions and sentence, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing defendant's stipulation to "under disability" and admitting full prior‑conviction materials | State: allowed to prove every element of the offense; admission proper and limiting instruction sufficient | Overton: admission of judgment+indictment revealed the name/nature of prior offenses and was unfairly prejudicial; he offered a stipulation to the status element | Court: Abuse of discretion — under Old Chief/Creech logic, when prior‑conviction status is the only purpose, prosecutor must accept a stipulation or risk unfair prejudice; trial court should have accepted a generalized stipulation to R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) and excluded detailed records |
| Whether limiting instruction cured any prejudice | State: limiting instruction would avoid misuse of the evidence | Overton: limiting instruction insufficient to cure danger of prejudice from explicit prior offense details | Held: limiting instruction was insufficient; admission posed risk of unfair prejudice |
| Whether defense counsel’s failure to object required plain‑error review | State: counsel stipulated to authenticity so appellant must show plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) | Overton: preserved offer to stipulate and moved in limine; court denied — error preserved | Court: did not reach plain‑error requirement as it found reversible error; ineffective‑assistance claim deemed moot |
| Whether convictions were against manifest weight due to lack of constructive possession | State: evidence linked Overton to apartment and items; constructive possession proven | Overton: insufficient evidence to prove constructive possession of drugs/gun | Court: not decided — assignment deemed moot after holding on stipulation/admission issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (Sup. Ct.) (admission of detailed prior‑offense record may be excluded when defendant offers to stipulate to the fact of conviction because the record’s prejudicial effect outweighs probative value)
- State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (standards for reviewing admissibility of evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)