State v. Suman
2010 Ohio 6204
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Suman was convicted in Athens County Municipal Court of violating R.C. 2919.27(A)(1) by recklessly violating a protection order.
- DePue obtained a protection order against Suman after Suman threatened to kill him.
- Suman visited Koon and Frank after service of the order; he prompted Koon to call DePue with threats.
- DePue’s answering machine recorded the call; deputies later traced the call to Koon and Frank’s residence.
- Koon pleaded guilty to aggravated menacing; a portion of his complaint alleged the call was at Suman’s behest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of the ‘to wit’ section of the complaint | State—relevant; tends to prove Suman asked for the call | Suman—prejudicial and irrelevant | No abuse of discretion; evidence is relevant and not substantially prejudicial |
| Use of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach own witness | State—surprise/damage admissible; impeachment | Suman—no proper foundation; object to witness' credibility | Not plain error; admission not shown to affect outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ahmed, 103 Ohio St.3d 27 (2004) (evidentiary standards for relevance and discretion)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (evidence relevance; proper balancing rules)
- Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269 (1991) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)