State v. Russell, 2013 Ohio 1381

Russell was convicted in Butler County Court of Common Pleas of domestic violence and abduction after a 2011 incident with his partner, Toni Annette McKnight; police found McKnight distressed with injuries and stated she had been held and assaulted since 6:00 p.m.
McKnight testified at trial about multiple assaults, threats to harm her if she left, and injuries including swelling and bruising; Russell denied causing the injuries.
Three certified judgments of domestic violence convictions were admitted to prove prior offenses; one entry was unsigned, and the admission aided elevating the DV offense from misdemeanor to third-degree felony under R.C. 2919.25(D)(4) because Russell had two or more prior DV convictions.
Russell challenged evidentiary rulings: admission of three prior DV convictions, admission of an unsigned judgment entry, admission of McKnight’s prior dishonesty conviction, and the scope of cross-examination and closing arguments.
The trial court ultimately found Russell guilty of abduction and DV, elevated DV to a felony, and sentenced him to 36 months; on appeal, the Twelfth District reviewed assignments of error and affirmed the judgment.
The court held the error in admitting the unsigned 1997 judgment entry harmless and affirmed overall, finding no reversible error or cumulative prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of a third DV conviction to elevate degree was proper	State argues three prior DV convictions valid under R.C. 2919.25(D)(4)	Russell contends only two convictions needed; third was surplus	No abuse of discretion; admissible to prove required two or more prior offenses
Admission of an unsigned prior conviction entry	State introduced three judgment entries to prove prior convictions	Unsigned 1997 entry should have been excluded	Erroneous but harmless
Admission of McKnight’s prior dishonesty conviction into evidence	Evidence admissible to impeach credibility under Evid.R. 609	Copy of conviction should be admitted to prove details	Not reversible error; admissible under rules; cross-examination details limited
Whether rehabilitating credibility with details of prior conviction was proper	State allowed details of conviction to rehabilitate credibility	Details should be limited	Not plain error; trial court properly limited and instructed jury on limits
Whether cross-examination and closing arguments improperly attacked defendant’s character	State's questions and closing arguments permissible for impeachment and burden	Prejudicial propensity evidence and cumulative error	Not plain error; cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable; no reversible error

State v. Lee, 191 Ohio App.3d 219 (2010-Ohio-6276) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; not reversible absent material prejudice)
State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (syllabus on admissibility of evidence; standard for rulings)
State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199 (2007-Ohio-1533) (prior convictions as elements when degree is elevated; proof beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252 (1987) (Evid.R. 403 balancing in admission of prior acts)
State v. Standifer, 12th Dist. No. CA2011-07-071, 2012-Ohio-3132 (2012) (limiting instructions presumed followed; use of prior convictions)
State v. Gwen, 134 Ohio St.3d 284 (2012-Ohio-5046) (proper method to prove prior conviction via certified judgment entries under Crim.R. 32(C) and Evid.R. 609)
State v. Amburgey, 33 Ohio St.3d 115 (1987) (cross-examination limits for impeachment offenses; focus on name, time, place, and punishment)
State v. Kaufman, (10th Dist. No. 99AP-1366) (2000) (impeachment details may be limited to avoid prejudice)
State v. Franklin, 178 Ohio App.3d 460 (2008-Ohio-4811) (impeachment by prior conviction limited; details not always probative)
State v. Topping, 4th Dist. No. 11CA6, 2012-Ohio-5617 (2012) (limits on cross-examination regarding conviction details)
State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (2002-Ohio-2126) (plain-error standard for review of trial errors)