State v. Spahr
| Decision Date | 04 February 1976 |
| Citation | 47 Ohio App.2d 221,353 N.E.2d 624 |
| Parties | , 1 O.O.3d 289 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. SPAHR, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. As related to trial, a motion in limine is a precautionary request, directed to the inherent discretion of the trial judge, to limit the examination of witnesses by opposing counsel in a specified area until its admissibility is determined by the court outside the presence of the jury.
2. The right of the state to appeal the granting of a motion to suppress evidence under Criminal Rule 12(J) does not include a right to appeal the granting or denial of a liminal motion which, like any other evidential ruling remains in the control of the court until the issues are reduced to a final judgment.
Scott E. Jarvis, Botkins, for appellant.
Alfred J. Weisbrod, Dayton, for appellee.
A motion was filed to suppress the introduction of marijuana, obtained in Shelby and Darke counties, into evidence. Also filed was a 'motion in limine,' requesting an order of the court, instructing the prosecutor to refrain from mentioning before the jury the marijuana found in Darke County and a statement made by the defendant without first obtaining permission from the court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.
On the motion to suppress, the court ruled that if the substances sought to be suppressed were material to this case, the motion to suppress was denied. On the motion for an order instructing the prosecutor to refrain from any mention, in the presence of the jury, of evidence or a statement relating to marijuana found in Darke County, the court held the following:
'(This court) sustains said motion and orders the Prosecuting Attorney to not use any evidence concerning any marijuana that was obtained in Darke County, Ohio and that is not a part of this case that we are trying here today.
'Said Prosecutor is to instruct his representatives and witnesses to refrain from making any references to the marijuana obtained in Darke County.'
Before the jury was impaneled, the ruling on the second motion was discussed on the record. The prosecutor accepted the decision as an order prohibiting any reference to the marijuana found outside of Shelby County. He indicated that it came into the case only by reason of a statement given by the defendant. This statement he desired to use because of an admission of sales, an admission of possession, and evidence of purchase and sale price.
If the ruling covered the use of the statement at trial, continued the prosecutor, then it was the intention of the state to appeal the ruling under Criminal Rule 12(J), because the evidential ruling jeopardized the state's case. He stated as his reasons for appeal: (1) The motion was not timely and (2) the holding that the evidence was not material and relevant was in error.
The defense argued that the introduction of evidence found in Darke County was irrelevant, improper and prejudicial. The record indicates proposed testimony of a sale in Shelby County after which the defendant removed that portion from eighteen and a half pounds and took the remainder to Darke County where it was obtained by the police. The statement, which was not suppressed, contained admissions of sale and the location of the balance in Darke County.
The court ruled that these matters would be highly prejudicial to the defendant and stated that the decision of the court remained the same. The marijuana found in Shelby County would be admitted, but the other found in Darke County would go into outside matters not involved in the trial. The prosecution then announced a purpose of taking an appeal on the ruling.
It is clear the ruling covered the marijuana recovered outside Shelby County. It is not clear whether it included all or part of the statement of the defendant; however, it is fair to assume that such portion of the statement as mentioned the marijuana in Darke County would not be permitted to be introduced at trial.
The motion to suppress had been overruled. The motion to instruct the prosecutor not to mention the references to the Darke County marijuana before the jury until a ruling was obtained was sustained. From this point, which was the sole purpose of the second motion, the court proceeded beyond the motion and issued a prospective ruling that the subject matter was irrelevant and prejudicial, and could not be admitted as evidence at trial.
The prosecutor assigns two grounds for error. The first, that the liminal motion was not timely filed under Criminal Rule 12(C), is denied for two reasons: the court did in the interest of justice act upon the motion within the purpose of a delayed motion under the rule; the nature of the motion is such that it cannot be considered a pretrial request. Motions relating to the materiality and relevance of evidence may be made at any time during trial.
The second assignment is that the ruling of the court was in error because the statement was material and relevant. While the state adopts the language of suppression, it is clear that such was not the situation. The court had held on the motion to suppress that the evidence was not illegal and overruled it. On the second motion, the court did not expressly sustain it as a so-called motion in limine; it proceeded directly to the problem and held the subject matter irrelevant and improper, making a prospective ruling in advance of the introduction of trial evidence.
Such a ruling lies within the discretion of the court in the conduct of the trial. The discretion to affirm or reverse its own evidential ruling remains with the judge until the conclusion of the trial. The materiality of testimony often depends upon a proper foundation or other circumstances which determine its admissibility. An evidential ruling, prospective or otherwise, is never final until the trial is completed and every avenue of admission has been explored and denied.
In view of the dusty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vance v. Warden
...of the jury." Woods v. Columbus (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 163, 164, 23 OBR 406, 492 N.E.2d 466, quoting State v. Spahr (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 221, 1 O.O.3d 289, 353 N.E.2d 624, paragraph one of the syllabus. "There is no provision under the rules or the statutes for a motion in limine. The req......
-
State v. Vance, 2007 Ohio 4407 (Ohio App. 8/28/2007), 06AP-1016.
...of the jury." Woods v. Columbus (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 163, 164, 23 OBR 406, 492 N.E.2d 466, quoting State v. Spahr (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 221, 1 O.O.3d 289, 353 N.E.2d 624, paragraph one of the syllabus. "There is no provision under the rules or the statutes for a motion in limine. The req......
-
Woods v. City of Columbus
...of evidence prior to trial, must be made by the sworn question and answer method, sometime during the trial. (State v. Spahr [1976], 47 Ohio App.2d 221, 353 N.E.2d 624 ; Riverside Methodist Hosp. Assn. v. Guthrie [1982], 3 Ohio App.3d 308, 444 N.E.2d 1358; Hammond v. Moon [1982], 8 Ohio App......
-
State v. Derek Brown, Todd Ebelein
... ... "tentative, interlocutory, precautionary ruling" ... which the trial court may change at trial when the disputed ... evidence appears in context. Id ... See, also, ... State v. Grubb (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 199, 201-202, ... 503 N.E.2d 142; State v. Spahr (1976), 47 Ohio ... App.2d 221, 353 N.E.2d 624 ... A ... ruling on a motion in limine does not preserve the ... record for appeal. An appellate court may not review the ... ruling unless the claimed error is preserved by an objection ... at trial ... ...