State v. Risner
Decision Date | 10 April 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 12-90-6,12-90-6 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. RISNER, Appellant. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Maria Santo, Lima, for appellant.
Daniel R. Gerschutz, Pros. Atty. and Bruce B. Bohrer, Ottawa, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence imposed by the Common Pleas Court of Putnam County upon a jury verdict, finding appellant, Tommy Ray Risner, guilty of aggravated arson.
On March 16, 1990, a house owned by appellant's mother was destroyed by fire. Investigation by the assistant fire marshal disclosed evidence that the loss resulted from arson.
Appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated arson, in violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(2). Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and filed his notice of alibi. Trial held on August 6 and 7, 1990, resulted in the jury's verdict of guilty, judgment and sentence from which this appeal is taken.
The assignment of error is:
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by receiving in evidence the testimony of appellant's half-brother, fifteen-year-old Harold Wayne McKnight, reporting a conversation held in his presence by appellant and their mother, during the course of which appellant's mother offered to pay appellant $1,000 of the insurance proceeds if he would burn the house.
Here on appeal, appellant concedes that the trial court correctly overruled the objection of trial counsel interposed on grounds of hearsay. Rather, appellant argues, the testimony should have been excluded by the court on the grounds of irrelevance notwithstanding the failure of trial counsel to advise the court of that reason for objection. The omission of the trial court to recognize the ground and exclude the testimony, argues appellant, was plain error.
Appellant was charged with aggravated arson, a violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(2), which is:
The testimony of McKnight, argues appellant, is not probative of any element of R.C. 2909.02(A)(2), but, rather, is evidence of a conspiracy to commit arson, a crime with which appellant was not charged; hence, the evidence is clearly irrelevant and should have been excluded.
The foregoing reasoning also underlies appellant's assertion of the court's plain error by instructing the jury about conspiracy in the absence of a charge of conspiracy laid against appellant in the indictment.
Here, the prosecution presented and argued its case upon a theory of complicity pursuant to R.C. 2923.03, which provides in part the following:
Among the several circumstances proscribed by R.C. 2923.03(A) in which a person may be an accomplice to an offense and be prosecuted and convicted as a principal offender, is that in which the person conspires with another to commit the offense in violation of R.C. 2923.01.
R.C. 2923.01 provides in pertinent part:
The offense of complicity may be charged either under R.C. 2923.03, the statute prohibiting complicity, or in terms of the principal offense. State v. Coleman (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 286, 525 N.E.2d 792; State v. Dotson (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 135, 520 N.E.2d 240.
Thus, in circumstances described by R.C. 2923.03(A)(3) and 2923.01, the charge may be stated, pursuant to R.C. 2923.03(F), in terms of the principal offense.
Appellant was indicted for violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(2), the principal offense of aggravated arson, based on evidence of his complicity in the felonious burning of his mother's residence.
To prove its case, the state offered evidence, unrebutted, that destruction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gideon
..." Crim.R. 52(B) governs plain-error review in criminal cases." Bagley , 2014-Ohio-1787, at ¶ 55, citing State v. Risner , 73 Ohio App.3d 19, 24, 595 N.E.2d 1040 (3d Dist.1991). "To demonstrate plain error, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court deviated from a legal rule, the e......
-
State v. Baskin
...criminal cases." State v. Bagley , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-31, 2014-Ohio-1787, 2014 WL 1692720, ¶ 55, citing State v. Risner , 73 Ohio App.3d 19, 24, 595 N.E.2d 1040 (3d Dist.1991). "A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent......
-
State v. Frye
...St.3d 195, 203, 661 N.E.2d 1068 (1996). {¶ 94} Crim.R. 52(B) governs plain-error review in criminal cases. State v. Risner , 73 Ohio App.3d 19, 24, 595 N.E.2d 1040 (3d Dist.1991). For there to be plain error under Crim.R. 52(B), the trial court must have deviated from a legal rule, the erro......
-
State v. Stevens
...review in criminal cases.” State v. Bagley, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1–13–31, 2014-Ohio-1787, 2014 WL 1692720, ¶ 55, citing State v. Risner, 73 Ohio App.3d 19, 24, 595 N.E.2d 1040 (3d Dist.1991). “A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to......