State v. Smith
2012 Ohio 2614
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Dedosha C. Smith and Timothy Secessions were implicated in an April 10, 2010 robbery of Malissa Smith-Cage; the jury found Smith guilty of robbery and she was sentenced to three years in prison.
- Smith and Secessions were charged with aggravated robbery and robbery; the aggravated robbery charges were directed verdicts against both defendants.
- Smith appeals asserting prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, mistrial issues, and weight of the evidence concerns.
- Prosecutor elicited from Smith-Cage that Smith’s brother attempted to bribe her not to testify; the bribery testimony was not pre disclosed and was improper.
- The trial court instructed jurors to disregard the bribery testimony, but the appellate court found a reasonable possibility the testimony affected the outcome and reversed the judgment.
- This Court remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct by eliciting bribery evidence | Smith argues the prosecutor violated discovery and admissibility norms. | State contends questions were relevant and permissible to assess fear of testifying. | Prosecutorial misconduct found; reversal ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lynch, 98 Ohio St.3d 514 (2003-Ohio-2284) (test for prejudicial impact on substantial rights in prosecutorial misconduct)
- State v. Secessions, 196 Ohio App. 3d 741 (2011-Ohio-6066) (misconduct when bribery is investigated; is improper if defendant not connected)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St. 3d 137 (1990) (admission of third-party bribery evidence requires connection to defendant)
- State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2001) (tests for improper questioning of witness)
- State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (2008-Ohio-6266) (prosecutor committed misconduct with improper question)
- State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (2008-Ohio-3426) (discovery nondisclosure sanctions under Crim.R.16; discretion of trial court)
- State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13 (1984) (improper remark during trial requires analysis of prejudicial effect)
- State v. Wilson, 8th Dist. No. 86092 (2006-Ohio-1333) (bribery-related testimony can be inflammatory against defendant)