State v. William Baker

• Decision Date: 17 May 1985
• Docket Number: 85-LW-1611,L-84-407
• Citation: State v. William Baker, 85-LW-1611, L-84-407 (Ohio App. May 17, 1985)
• Parties: State of Ohio, APPELLEE v. William Baker, APPELLANT C. A.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

State of Ohio, APPELLEE v. William Baker, APPELLANT

No. L-84-407.

85-LW-1611 (6th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District Lucas

May 17, 1985

APPEAL FROM LUCAS COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURTNO. CR 84-6227.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

PER CURIAM

This cause came on to be heard upon the record in the trial court.Each assignment of error was reviewed by the court and upon review the following disposition made:

This case is before the court on appeal from a judgment entered by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas wherein appellantWilliam Baker was adjudged guilty of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02 and sentenced accordingly.This appeal follows with appellant setting forth as his sole assignment of error:

"IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE PROSECUTION TO QUESTION THE DEFENDANT ABOUT ALLEGED PRIOR CONVICTIONS WHEN THE PROSECUTION HAD NO CERTIFIED COPY OF SUCH PRIOR CONVICTIONS TO OFFER IN EVIDENCE AND, IN FACT, DID NOT SO OFFER ANY PROOF OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS, AND THE COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON THE PROSECUTOR'S DISPLAY IN FRONT OF THE JURY OF A THREE AND ONE HALF FOOT UNCERTIFIED PRINTOUT OF A HODGEPODGE OF TRAFFIC OFFENSES, ARRESTS, MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS ETC.WHEN QUESTIONING DEFENDANT ABOUT ALLEGED PRIOR CONVICTIONS."

The facts giving rise to this assignment of error are as follows.

Appellant was indicted on July 17, 1984, of raping his exwife.The case came to trial on October 18, 1984.During cross-examination the court instructed the prosecution that he could not question appellant about prior assault convictions but that he could ask about prior petty theft and bad check charges.When questioned about any such convictions, appellant denied having been convicted of the petty theft charge, saying that the charge had been dismissed.The prosecutor did not offer any evidence to support his allegation, nor did he inquire further into the allegation or mention it again during the course of the trial.

It was during this questioning of appellant by the prosecutorappellant alleges, that the prosecutor"unfurled" a three and a half foot long computer printout of appellant's previous police record in a deliberate and conspicuous manner in full view of the jury.Said printout listed various misdemeanor and felony charges, several of which had never been prosecuted or of which appellant had been acquitted.

Based on the evidence adduced at trial appellant was convicted on October 17, 1984.A motion for new trial was filed on October 24, 1984.In support of said motion, appellant argued that he was improperly questioned about misdemeanor offenses and that unfurling the police printout improperly suggested to the jury that appellant had a long list of prior offenses.Upon consideration, the trial court noted that no objection was made at the time the alleged transgressions occurred and further, the court was unable to recall such an event if it did in fact occur.Ultimately, the court could find no prejudice to appellant and the motion was denied.Upon appeal, appellant essentially reiterates his argument as set forth upon motion.

Appellant raises, in essence, two arguments in support of his sole assignment of error: first, that the trial court erred in allowing testimony regarding appellant's prior convictions and, second, that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial.

In regard to appellant's first argument, this court need not address the proposition of law raised because appellant failed to object to the alleged misconduct during trial.The Ohio Supreme Court has consistently held that ...