State v. Lampkin
Decision Date | 20 December 1996 |
Docket Number | No. H-96-017,H-96-017 |
Citation | 116 Ohio App.3d 771,689 N.E.2d 106 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. LAMPKIN, Appellant. Sixth District, Huron County |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Russell V. Leffler, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, Norwalk, for appellant.
Holly B. Bishop, Huron County Chief Assistant Public Defender, Norwalk, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence issued by the Huron County Court of Common Pleas, following the return of a jury's guilty verdict on a charge of aggravated assault. Because we conclude that the trial court committed plain error in the submission of the verdict form, we reverse.
Appellant, Charles D. Lampkin, was charged with felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2901.11(A)(1). He was tried and found guilty by a jury of the lesser included offense of aggravated assault in violation of R.C. 2903.12(A). The trial court sentenced appellant to serve a definite prison term of one year.
Appellant now appeals, setting forth the following five assignments of error:
We will address appellant's fifth assignment of error, in which he argues that the jury's verdict was contrary to law because the verdict form failed to include the essential elements of the offense of aggravated assault. Since appellant failed to object to the jury verdict form at trial, we must consider this issue under the doctrine of plain error.
Failure to object to an error in the trial court in a criminal proceeding precludes the issue from being raised on appeal, unless the issue rises to the level of plain error. See State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 13, 3 OBR 360, 360-361, 444 N.E.2d 1332, 1333; State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 7 O.O.3d 178, 372 N.E.2d 804. Plain error is an obvious error or defect in the trial court proceedings, affecting substantial rights, where, but for the error, the outcome of the trial court clearly would have been otherwise. State v. Underwood, supra; State v. Long, supra. See, also, Crim.R. 52(B).
In order to find an accused guilty of aggravated assault, a jury must find that the state has proved all the essential elements of R.C. 2903.12(A), which provides:
In the present case, the trial court, in what appears to be a novel approach, 1 not only identified the charge on the verdict form by name, but also attempted to describe the offense by reciting its statutory language. The completed form, as it appears in the record, reads as follows:
"We, the Jury, find the defendant *Guilty of Aggravated Assault (causing serious physical harm to another while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Harwell
...confusion and error.' " State v. Martin, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22744, 2009-Ohio-5303, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Lampkin, 116 Ohio App.3d 771, 774, 689 N.E.2d 106 (6th Dist. 1996), at fn. 1. Nevertheless, "when a court submits a verdict form containing a statutory description of the offense, i......
-
State v. Taylor
...a statutory description of the offense, it commits reversible error if the description omits essential elements of that offense." Lampkin at 108. 66} In State v. Harwell, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25852, 2015-Ohio-2966, we encountered a situation like the one involved here. In that case, we n......
-
State v. Shutway
..." (Emphasis added.) State v. Harwell, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25852, 2015-Ohio-2966, ¶ 59, quoting State v. Lampkin, 116 Ohio App.3d 771, 774, 689 N.E.2d 106 (6th Dist.1996). While venue is a fact that must be proven at trial, it "is not a material element of any offense charged." (Citation......
-
State v. McDonald
...6 LaFave, Criminal Procedure, Section 24.10(a), at 714 (3d Ed.2007), “invite[ ] confusion and error,” State v. Lampkin, 116 Ohio App.3d 771, 774, 689 N.E.2d 106 (6th Dist.1996), fn. 1, and pose a “danger of * * * shifting or weakening * * * the government's burden of proof,” United States v......