State v. Sutton, 2011 Ohio 6270

Defendant Timothy Sutton, Jr. was indicted for burglary with a notice of prior conviction and a repeat violent offender specification, and for vandalism.
Sutton pled not guilty and waived the jury trial as to the notice of prior conviction and the repeat violent offender specification.
The State filed a 404(B) notice to offer testimony from Edward Laster regarding Sutton’s 2006 burglary conviction.
At trial, the state presented evidence from the 2010 break-in at 3641 Martin Luther King Boulevard and related observations by the realtor and neighbor observers.
Laster testified about Sutton’s 2006 burglary; Philpotts testified to an October 4, 2010 incident at the same property; police officers corroborated the scene.
The jury found Sutton guilty of burglary and the court imposed eight years for burglary plus three years for the repeat offender specification and three years of postrelease control; the vandalism charge was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 404(B) evidence	State argued 404(B) evidence showed intent/motive and connection to charged burglary.	Sutton contended prior-burglary details were dissimilar and prejudicial.	Abuse of discretion; prejudicial outweighed probative value; remand for new trial.

State v. Mauer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (limits on admissibility of evidence; strict standard)
State v. Gardner, 59 Ohio St.2d 14 (1979) (relationship between prior acts and intent must be meaningful)
State v. Cotton, 113 Ohio App.3d 125 (1996) (exceptions to character evidence when showing intent or plan)
State v. Burson, 38 Ohio St.2d 157 (1974) (strict construction of exceptions to evidence of prior acts)