State v. Southam, 2012 Ohio 5943

Southam was arrested July 16, 2011 at a self-storage facility after deputies observed him near multiple units and entering unit 66; bolt cutters and a broken padlock were found nearby.
Southam was advised of his Miranda rights and stated he acted alone; nineteen lockers were later found broken.
On August 2, 2011, a seven-count indictment was returned: one count of possession of criminal tools and six counts of breaking and entering; five counts were later dismissed.
A two-day jury trial was held January 3–4, 2012; the State dismissed five counts, proceeding only on counts 1 and 2 (possession of criminal tools and breaking and entering of unit 66).
Southam’s counsel sought a continuance due to the dismissed counts affecting defense preparation; the trial court denied the continuance.
During trial, Deputy Walker testified that Southam had warrants; the court sustained a objection and instructed the jury to disregard; no mistrial was declared.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Deputy Walker’s mention of warrants violated Evid.R. 404(B).	Southam argues improper prior-bad-acts testimony occurred and the court should cure via specific instruction or mistrial.	Southam contends curative steps were insufficient to negate prejudice.	No evidentiary violation; curative instructions were adequate.
Whether the trial court should have declared a mistrial after the reference to warrants.	Southam claims prejudice requiring mistrial.	Southam asserts the comment was prejudicial and irreparable.	Mistrial not required; curative instruction sufficed.
Whether the denial of a continuance after dismissing counts 3–7 was an abuse of discretion.	Southam contends continuance was necessary for defense preparation.	Surprises and strategy changes do not mandate continuance; trial proceeded with counts 1–2.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.

State v. Breedlove, 26 Ohio St.2d 178 (Ohio 1971) (evidence of other crimes not admissible to show conduct)
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (Ohio 1996) (brief, fleeting references and curative instruction can remove prejudice)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2001) (mistrial not required unless fair trial is impossible)
State v. Seiber, 56 Ohio St.3d 4 (Ohio 1990) (standard for curing evidentiary error with objections)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (continuance decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio 2011) (jury instruction standards and curative measures post-error)