State v. ArringtonState v. Arrington
Tyler P. Webb, 423 Reading Road, Mason, Ohio 45040, for defendant-appellant
O P I N I O N
YOUNG, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Cameron Arrington, appeals his conviction in thе Clinton County Court of Common Pleas for intimidation of a victim or witness in a criminal case.
{¶ 2} In March 2011, appellant and the victim began a romantic relationship. Appellant quickly became abusive, violent, and controlling; the relationship was marked by threats and physical, verbal, and mental abuse. As a result of his аbusive behavior on two separate occasions (April and May 2011), appellant was indicted in July 2011 on one count
{¶ 3} In January 2012, appellant entered a guilty plea to failing to provide notice of a change of address. A jury trial was held on the remaining charges. At trial, during the victim‘s direct examinatiоn, the state played excerpts of the telephone conversations. Although the state had a total of eight or nine hours of telephone сonversations, only 30 minutes of the audiotapes were played for the jury.
{¶ 4} Prior to closing arguments, the trial court granted defense counsel‘s
{¶ 5} Appellant appeals, raising one assignment of error:
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO INTRODUCE THE FULL PORTIONS OF RECORDED AUDIOTAPES.
{¶ 7} At trial, during the victim‘s direct examination, the state sought to play for the jury 15-minute excerpts from ten different telephone conversations, for a total of 150 minutes. Pursuant to
{¶ 8} After listening to the parties’ positions, the trial court declined to rule on the issue. Rather, the court told the parties “to haggle over this issue” and to let the court know the nеxt day if they were able to reach an agreement. The trial court then recessed for the day. When the court reconvened the following day, the stаte resumed its direct examination of the victim, and once again indicated it would play excerpts of the telephone conversations between appellant and the victim. Addressing defense counsel, the trial court stated, “My understanding is there‘s no issue with regard to the playing of the recording; is that correct?” Defense counsel replied, “Not at this time.” Subsequently, 30 minutes of the audiotapes were played for the jury without any objections from appellant. Two of the excerpts played for the jury ended with “I love you, I love you too.” On cross-examination, the victim testified that while some of the teleрhone conversations were pretty heated, she ended most of them with “I love you.”
{¶ 9} On appeal, appellant argues that
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} The adverse party is, however, not autоmatically entitled to have the entire writing or recorded statement introduced into evidence simply by requesting it. State v. Williams, 115 Ohio App.3d 24, 41 (11th Dist.1996). Rather, the adverse party has the burden of showing that the additional part sought to be introduced is not only admissible, but also relevant to the portion that has already been introduced. State v. Holmes, 77 Ohio App.3d 582, 585 (11th Dist.1991); State v. Scott, 2d Dist. No. 21260, 2006-Ohio-4016, ¶ 9.
{¶ 13} Upon review of the record, we find no violation of
{¶ 14} At the end of the first day of trial, when the state first introduced the excerpts of the telephone conversations it intended to play for thе jury, appellant promptly sought to have the entire telephone conversations introduced. Yet, the next day, when the state again indicated it wоuld play excerpts of the conversations, appellant did not seek to introduce the conversations in their entirety. Rather, appellant stаted he had no objections. The record
{¶ 15} In addition, appellant made no attempt on the second day of the trial to show that the entire conversations were admissible and relevant to the excerpts introduced by the state. Although he was not prevented by the trial court, appellant also never used any рortion of the telephone conversations during the presentation of his case. See Holmes, 77 Ohio App.3d at 585 (If the additional parts are not relevant to the initial рart, then the additional parts can be safely introduced during the adverse party‘s case). Appellant did, however, elicit testimony from the victim on cross-examination that their romantic relationship continued after his arrest and that while some of the telephone conversations were heatеd, she ended most of them with “I love you.”
{¶ 16} Appellant‘s assignment of error is accordingly overruled.
{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
Young, J., retired, of the Twelfth Appellate District, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice, pursuant to Section 6(C), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.