State v. Zimmerman, No. 84-1059
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | DOUGLAS; CELEBREZZE |
| Citation | 18 OBR 79,18 Ohio St.3d 43,479 N.E.2d 862 |
| Parties | , 18 O.B.R. 79 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. ZIMMERMAN, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1059 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1985 |
Page 43
v.
ZIMMERMAN, Appellant.
In determining whether a prosecutor's reference to the accused's failure to testify requires reversal, courts must apply the harmless-error doctrine. (United States v. Hasting [1983], 461 U.S. 499, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96, applied.)
Appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol after a jury trial in Fairborn Municipal Court. During closing argument the prosecutor called the jury's attention to the fact appellant had not testified:
"Let me make some other comments. Obviously, it is not the number of witnesses a side has as to whether or not they win a lawsuit. If that was
Page 44
the case, I think we'd have a winner. I think we had three. I think the Defendant had two."The Defendant chose not to testify on his own behalf.
" * * *
[479 N.E.2d 863] " * * * [I]f you liken this case to a baseball game, when you boil it down, the game was all about whether or not Mr. Zimmerman was operating under the influence. When you consider the evidence that has been presented, the box score in this ball game, Ladies and Gentlemen, happened to be three to zip.
"There were three witnesses in this trial that testified as to whether or not he was guilty of operating a motor vehicle under the influence. One witness saw what happened from the outside, observing his vehicle. That guy wore a uniform and a badge. Two others happened to be in the vehicle a short time before and saw it from the inside looking out.
"Two other witnesses testified as to whether or not he was under the influence while dancing or under the influence while buying beer.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, if this trial was a ball game, the score was three to nothing. It was a shutout in favor of the State of Ohio.
"Now, I ask you to consider when you deliberate this case * * *.
"You know, you have been very patient with each of us. You have been patient with the Court, but I want you to consider the State is not relying upon this piece of paper that happens to be a test result to substantiate this case. Do you know what this piece of paper does? It corroborates the other parts of the State's case. It solidifies this idea that these physical symptoms were what they were stated to be. It solidifies Mr. Zimmerman was guilty of erratic driving. By the way, when you boil all the evidence down concerning whether or not he ran off the road or whether he was guilty of erratic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Ohio v. Lewers, Case No. 2009-CA-00289
...Assuming the admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Crim.R. 52(A); State v. Zimmerman (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 43, 45, 479 N.E.2d 862, 863. There was no prejudicial error in allowing Michael Short to testify in this case. {¶75} Accordingly, appellant's......
-
State v. Baston, No. 97-2204
...Assuming the admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Crim.R. 52(A); State v. Zimmerman (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 43, 45, 18 OBR 79, 81, 479 N.E.2d 862, 863. There was no prejudicial error in allowing Dr. Scala-Barnett to testify in this Witness Statement......
-
State v. Williams, No. 86-607
...St.3d 146, 23 OBR 315, 492 N.E.2d 401; State v. Mann (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 34, 19 OBR 28, 482 N.E.2d 592; State v. Zimmerman (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 43, 18 OBR 79, 479 N.E.2d 862, syllabus; State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 264, 15 OBR 379, 400, 473 N.E.2d 768, 791; State v. Smith (1......
-
State v. Smith, Case No. 2012-CA-17
...were to assume the admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Crim.R. 52(A); State v. Zimmerman, 18 Ohio St.3d 43, 45, 479 N.E.2d 862, 863(1985). There was no prejudicial error in allowing Special Agent Burke to testify in this case. Agent Burke's testi......
-
State Of Ohio v. Lewers, Case No. 2009-CA-00289
...Assuming the admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Crim.R. 52(A); State v. Zimmerman (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 43, 45, 479 N.E.2d 862, 863. There was no prejudicial error in allowing Michael Short to testify in this case. {¶75} Accordingly, appellant's......
-
State v. Baston, No. 97-2204
...Assuming the admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Crim.R. 52(A); State v. Zimmerman (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 43, 45, 18 OBR 79, 81, 479 N.E.2d 862, 863. There was no prejudicial error in allowing Dr. Scala-Barnett to testify in this Witness Statement......
-
State v. Williams, No. 86-607
...St.3d 146, 23 OBR 315, 492 N.E.2d 401; State v. Mann (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 34, 19 OBR 28, 482 N.E.2d 592; State v. Zimmerman (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 43, 18 OBR 79, 479 N.E.2d 862, syllabus; State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 264, 15 OBR 379, 400, 473 N.E.2d 768, 791; State v. Smith (1......
-
State v. Smith, Case No. 2012-CA-17
...were to assume the admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Crim.R. 52(A); State v. Zimmerman, 18 Ohio St.3d 43, 45, 479 N.E.2d 862, 863(1985). There was no prejudicial error in allowing Special Agent Burke to testify in this case. Agent Burke's testi......