STATE OF OHIO v. ROY J. EWING
CASE NOS. CA2017-05-062 CA2017-05-063
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
2/5/2018
2018-Ohio-451
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT Case No. 2017CRB000039
Rose & Dobyns Co., L.P.A., Blaise S. Underwood, 97 North South Street, Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for defendant-appellant
O P I N I O N
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Roy Ewing, appeals his conviction in the Warren County Court for domestic violence.
{¶ 2} On January 14, 2017, appellant‘s wife, Jamie Ewing, called 9-1-1 after an argument with appellant escalated and became physical. The responding police officers talked to appellant and Jamie separately. Jamie was upset and her eyes were a little bit
{¶ 3} On January 15, 2017, appellant was charged by complaint with one count of domestic violence in violation of
{¶ 4} The record indicates that a few days after appellant was charged with domestic violence and removed from the house, Jamie broke into appellant‘s safe and removed money and firearms. What Jamie specifically took from the safe and did with the items is a matter of dispute.
{¶ 5} The domestic violence and violation of a protection order charges proceeded to a jury trial on April 7, 2017. Prior to trial, appellant moved the trial court for permission to cross-examine Jamie regarding the “safecracking” incident. The motion asserted that Jamie wanted to initiate divorce proceedings and “secure leverage over [appellant] in these divorce proceedings. This is why she: (1) was untruthful with the police when they interviewed her during the night in question; and (2) broke into [his] safe and stole his items just days after he was charged.” In other words, the motion asserted that cross-examining Jamie about the “safecracking” incident would show that she lied about the domestic violence incident in an effort to have appellant removed from the home so that she would
{¶ 6} The trial court denied the motion, finding that given the factual dispute regarding the “safecracking” incident, “It‘s the court‘s opinion that it would be confusing to the jury and it would mislead the jury to get into this factual dispute.” On April 7, 2017, the jury found appellant guilty as charged.
{¶ 7} Appellant now appeals, raising one assignment of error:
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT‘S “MOTION TO PERMIT INQUIRY ON CROSS EXAMINATION RE: SAFECRACKING.”
{¶ 9} Appellant argues that the trial court‘s refusal to allow defense counsel to cross-examine Jamie regarding the “safecracking” incident violated appellant‘s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Specifically, appellant asserts that such cross-examination would have revealed Jamie‘s motive to lie about the domestic violence incident in order to remove appellant from the house and subsequently “beg[i]n staging for assets immediately upon learning [he] wanted a divorce.”
{¶ 10} The
{¶ 11} “Similarly,
{¶ 12} To establish a Confrontation Clause violation, a defendant must show that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination and a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of the witness’ credibility had defense counsel been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross-examination. State v. Vansickle, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2013-03-005, 2014-Ohio-1324, ¶ 42; Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 680.
{¶ 13} Appellant moved the trial court for permission to cross-examine Jamie regarding the “safecracking” incident. The gist of his motion was that Jamie had a motive to lie about the domestic violence incident because she wanted a divorce and thus needed to remove appellant from the house so that she could “secure leverage over [him] in these divorce proceedings.” At trial, appellant was not allowed to cross-examine Jamie regarding the “safecracking” incident. He was, however, allowed to, and did cross-examine her as to whether she intended to divorce appellant before the domestic violence incident occurred.
{¶ 14} We find that the trial court did not violate appellant‘s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when it barred him from cross-examining Jamie regarding the
{¶ 15} Appellant‘s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.