State v. Graham
| Decision Date | 13 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1278,78-1278 |
| Citation | 390 N.E.2d 805,58 Ohio St.2d 350 |
| Parties | , 12 O.O.3d 317 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. GRAHAM, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On September 23, 1977, appellee, Jeff Graham, was indicted upon a charge that, on or about September 10, 1977, he purposely compelled an adult female to submit to sexual conduct with him by force or threat of force, in violation of R.C. 2907.02.
Pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 2907.02(E), an evidentiary hearing was held to determine the admissibility of evidence of alleged past sexual relations between the victim and appellee. Appellee proposed to testify at his trial that he engaged in sexual relations with the victim approximately one year before the alleged rape. The stated purpose of this evidence was to demonstrate that force would not have been necessary had appellee been involved in the commission of the crime. The admissibility of the evidence was contested by appellant on the ground that the absence of a relationship between appellee and the victim for the year immediately preceding the alleged rape rendered the proposed evidence without probative value. The trial court agreed and ruled that the evidence would be inadmissible at trial.
Appellee's cause came to trial before a jury on January 4, 1978. The victim testified that around 12:30 a. m., on September 10, 1977, appellee invited her into his automobile as she was walking up the driveway of her home. Upon entering the vehicle, appellee asked her if she would like to go to Florida with him. The victim testified that when she declined appellee's offer and attempted to exit the vehicle he prevented her departure by grabbing her clothing and driving away with her in the car. When appellee reached a home under construction along State Route 310, he pulled into the driveway and stated that he was going to "finally get what he wanted." The victim testified that appellee then forcibly removed her clothing and raped her.
Appellee testified that he did not even see the victim in the early morning hours of September 10, 1977. He stated that during the preceding evening, he had been drinking with friends. He testified that he had talked to the victim earlier that evening, at her home and at a football game, but denied seeing her after the game or having any sexual relations with her. Appellee testified further that by 12:45 a. m., on the morning of the alleged crime, he was at home with his wife.
The jury found appellee guilty as charged, and he was sentenced by the court to a term of from five to 25 years.
The Court of Appeals reversed appellee's conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial, finding that the trial court should not have excluded appellee's evidence of his prior sexual relations with the victim.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion for leave to appeal.
David E. Lighttiser and Robert L. Becker, Newark, for appellant.
Steiner, Berryhill, Wince & Shaheen and John C. Berryhill, Hebron, for appellee.
The sole inquiry presented by this cause is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding appellee's proposed evidence of his prior sexual conduct with the victim....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nichols
...reverse on appeal unless the court so abused its discretion that prejudicial error intervened. State v. Graham (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 350, 352, 12 O.O.3d 317, 318, 390 N.E.2d 805, 806. An abuse of discretion, as mentioned previously, is indicated by a decision which is arbitrary, unreasonabl......
-
State v. Baskin
...standard of review a trial court's admission of extrinsic evidence under Evid.R. 613(B) ), citing State v. Graham , 58 Ohio St.2d 350, 352, 390 N.E.2d 805 (1979). To constitute an abuse of discretion, the trial court must have acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. Adams , 62 O......
-
Fetherolf v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
...No. 12-16-06, 2017-Ohio-608, ¶ 54, citing State v. Cassel, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26708, 2016-Ohio-3479, ¶ 13, citing State v. Graham, 58 Ohio St.2d 350 (1979), and State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337, 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 19. An abuse of discretion constitutes a decision that is arbitrary, c......
-
State v. Curtiss
... ... the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and ... that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh ... its probative value ... {¶ ... 171} We review evidentiary decisions on rape shield ... issues for abuse of discretion. State v. Graham, 58 ... Ohio St.2d 350, 352, 390 N.E.2d 805 (1979) ... {¶ ... 172} None of the exceptions to the statute apply ... here, and on that ground, there was no statutory basis for ... admitting testimony about other possible sexual abuse of ... Kathy. In the context of this law, the ... ...