State v. Thacker, 77-805
| Decision Date | 12 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-805,77-805 |
| Citation | 54 Ohio St.2d 43,374 N.E.2d 642 |
| Parties | , 8 O.O.3d 37 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. THACKER, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Following his arraignment on a charge of aggravated murder, defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Trial began on June 17, 1976, and, on June 23, after submission of the case to the jury, they advised the judge that they could not reach a verdict. The date of August 23, 1976, was then set for the second trial of defendant.
On July 26, 1976, defendant, by motion, requested "the court to provide him" with transcripts of the testimony of 11 witnesses from the first trial. He claimed that such transcripts were necessary in order to adequately prepare for the second trial. The state did not oppose defendant's request, and no hearing was held. The next day, July 27, the trial judge declared defendant indigent and appointed counsel for him. * Defendant's request for transcripts was, subsequently, overruled by the trial judge. He renewed his request for transcripts when the second trial began and, again, his motion was overruled.
Defendant's second trial proceeded, and he was found guilty of the lesser-included offense of felonious assault, and was sentenced accordingly.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, found that defendant was not prejudiced by the refusal of the trial court to allow him his requested transcripts, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The allowance of defendant's motion for leave to appeal brings the cause to this court for review.
John D. Shimp, Pros. Atty. and Stephen E. Hagerman, Fremont, for appellee.
Dewey & Dewey and Thomas F. Dewey, Jr., Clyde, for appellant.
Defendant's sole claim before this court is that the denial of his "unopposed request for transcripts of the testimony of eleven witnesses from the defendant's prior trial was prejudicial error and the judgment of the trial court should be reversed."
It is defendant's contention that some of the testimony of witnesses at his first trial was inconsistent with prior statements of such witnesses, and that transcripts of such testimony from the first trial are necessary for an effective defense in his second trial for the purpose of impeaching those witnesses.
In State v. Arrington (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 114, 326 N.E.2d 667, this court held, in paragraphs one and two of the syllabus, that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Spirko v. Judges of Court of Appeals, Third Appellate Dist., 85-1784
...* * * shall proceed as any civil action under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure."4 See, also, to the same effect: State v. Thacker (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 43, 44, 374 N.E.2d 642 ; State ex rel. Seigler v. Rone (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 361, 328 N.E.2d 811 ; State ex rel. Terrell v. Court (1963), ......
-
State v. Elwood H. Jones
...the same functions as a transcript. State v. Thacker (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 43, 374 N.E.2d 642. Apparently the state made no defense, in Thacker, either that the transcript would not be valuable to the defendant in connection with the second trial or that there were alternative means availa......
-
City of Marion v. Gary A. Snyder, 97-LW-3582
...was applied to a request for a transcript of a prior trial in State v. Thacker (l978), 54 Ohio St.2d 43, 8 O.O.3d 37, 374 N.E.2d 642. In Thacker, the trial ended in a hung jury and the defendant requested a transcript of the first trial in order to help the defense prepare for the second tr......
-
State v. Ferguson
...for a second trial the trial court denies the defendant's request for a transcript of the testimony at the first trial. State v. Thacker (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 43, 1 374 N.E.2d We detect several distinguishing features between those two cases and the instant case. Therein, the transcripts of......