appendix proof of service ..: 16 conclusion 15 … 4^ r^ ^r^ , ^ ^ ^•y^ ^si9^ ♦ ... key to the...
TRANSCRIPT
J.: ^.
STATE OF OHIO,
APPELLEE,
V.
FRANK REGAN,
APPELLANT.
Court of AppealsCase No. 13 CAA 08 0067
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION OF APPELLANT,FRANK REGAN
Eric J. Allen (0073384)713 South Front St.Columbus, Ohio 43206Tel No. (614) 443-4840Fax No. (614) 445-7873
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, FRANK REGAN
CarolO'I3rienDelaware County Prosecutor140 North SanduskyDelaware, Ohio 43015Tel No; (740) 883-2690Fax No. (740) 833-2689
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, STATE OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
j,
On Appeal from the DelawareCounty Corart of AppealsFifth District
..., ,,. ,
,^6r,
^F.^^
4^ ry^ ^si9^ ♦^ ^r^ , ^ ^ ^•
. sE iB^1,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTI-IORITIES................................................................................................ .......... ii
EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLICOR GREAT GENERAL IN'I EREST ANF'^ INVOLVES A SUESTANTIAI.CONSTITUTIONAL QUES TION ............ ......................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS ............................ ............. ............ ................ ................ 2-S
ARGUIVIENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW ..................................................6-14
Proposition of Law #1
T'FIE FIFTH DISTRICT ERRED IN AFFIRMING 1"I-IETRIAL COURT'S OVERRULING OF APPEI.LANT'S ViOTION IN LIMINE
Proposition ofLaw #2
THE FIFTH DISTRICT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'SDECISION TO LIMIT THE DEFENDANT IN HIS CROSS
ENAMINATION IN VIOLATION OF IIIS SIXTI-I AMENDMENT RIGHT TOCONFRONTATION GUARANTEED UNDER THE UNITED STATESCONSTITUTION
Proposition ofLaw #3
THE FIFTH DISTRICT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSALTO ALLOW APPELTL,ANT T.) RAISE THE ISSUE OF REPAYMENT
TO THE ALLEGED VICTIMS OR THF, FACT TI-IAT OTHER JURISDICTIONSDID NOT FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST HIM
Proposition of Law #4
THE FIFTH DISTRICT ERRED IN AFFLRMING THE TRIAI., COURT'S DENIAL OFAPI'ELLAN'I"S RULE 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL DUE TO THE STATE
FROVIDING INSUFFICIENT EVp DENCE 'I'O CONVICT THE APPELLANT INVIOLATI:ON OF T-T-jE OHIO AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS
CONCLUSION ....................... .................... ...................... ............... ................................... .......... 15
PROOF OF SERVICE ........... ....... ............ ..:....................... ............ ............ ................................... 16
APPENDIX
I
i A^BLEQF AU k H®k.11`1ES
Cases -- _^ Paee #
State
AAAA Ents., 7nc. v. River Place Co?nna. Llr'oan7Zedeved, Corp., 50 Ohio St. 3d 157 (1990) ........11State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) ............ ................ ........... ............. ........ ............................ 6State v. DeMat•cc, 31 Ohio St.3d 1o,1 o9rr; ...........................:......................................................7State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (2008) ......................................................................................11State v. Gr°een, Hamilton App. No. C-880504, unreported (July 11, -1990) ................:.................10State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d199 (1986) ............... ................ ......... ............ ............................... ....6State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991).., ..... ............... ............................ ................... ................ 14State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) ......... ......... .................................................................. 6, 11State v. Phillips, 27 Ohio St2d 294, (1971; ......:........:...................... ..................... ....,..................... 9State v. Robinson, 162Ohio St. 486(195;....................... ............... ................ ............................. 13State v. Williams, 134 Ob-io St.3d 521, in t1-_e syllaba:^s................ .............. ................. ..................... 7
Federal
Delaware v. Van AYsdall. 4751J.S: 673 (1 986) ...........: .............................:....................................1 nTointer v. 7exas, 380 1J.S. 400 (1965) ........ ...... ................. .......... ..... ............. ............... :......... .......... 9Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982)..................... ...,........ .............. .,,....... ................ .................... 13
Statutes ar^d Coiirt Rules
Crinq. R. 29 ............................... ......................................................................................................13R.C. 2913.01 ...... ........................... ............. .:............. ............,...... ................. ,............. ............. 12, 14R.C. 2913.31 .. ,...:....: ..................:....................... ....... ....:;......... ......... ,,..................................... 12, 14R.C 2945.59 ................. ............................ ....,.................,.....:........................................................:.7OX.E. 401................ ....... ... :.............. ....:................. . ................ ........... ................................ ..... 7, 12O.R.E. 403 .... .......... .............. .............. ...:..:................:......................................................................7®.R.E 404 .... .......... .......... .................. ......... .....................:......a,...........,..:........ ,......... .............. 6, 7, 8
11
1. EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE ,^S A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREATGENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBS'I'ANTIAI, CONSTITUTIONALQUES'TION
Appellant was denied aii or,-portunit,l to fully litigate his clainzs in the Court of Common
Pleas in Delaware County, Ohio. The judge de.nied his post-conviction motion and the Fifth
District Court of Appeals af^irmed his con,>Jiction.
Appellant had cb.aracte-^- evi^dence admitted against him against his motion in limine filed
with the tria.l court. A defendant, the rules of evide,,ice, has a. right to not have character
evidence admitted where it is r:ot re;evant u.nd does siot fall within one of the exceptions set forth
in O.R.E. 404(b).
Appeliant alleges that he h^.d his S:^_th Amendment right to con.frontation, guaranteed
under the tinited States Constitutionn., infrirged dvhwp, the trial court 3imitetl his ability to cross-
examitie witnesses. Key to the .ighG to con^.^^ont- one5s accaisers is th, ability to cross-examine for
biases t-he witness may hold.
Apy»el6ant also was r^ot pennGitted tr; xaisc relPvant to show l:is lack of the requisite mental
state. Not permitting a dvfendant to preseW n°videncn that vJould have contradicted the state's
case against him and resulted in ar, acquia^=' is an issue o.i 6reat interest.
Appellant also alleges that th.e evictence producedby theSta.te of Ohio was insufficient to
convict hirn, in violatiori of both t^^:-.. C)hio 'Id Tp,ederal Gonstitut;os,, .^i^Ihere there is insufficient
evidence to convict a defendant, a'=°ule 29 notion for ac ^^ruittal shol,.ild be granted,
1
II. S`I°A'TEMI•J+ NT OF THE CASE AND I+'AC'I's
A. ,5toteaent of the Facis
Appellant, hereinafter Mr. Rega.pi, s-Ills baseball a.-iemorabilia, paiticusarly baseball cards.
Forrest Ewing collects iCasebali ca$°ds. In `'; i 2,, the two men met each other.
M.°. Regari bought «nL raiber of car. :v f^°<:m a c'ealc:r in Califom- ia, Carlos Topete. This
includes the three Mickey Mantle cards tfho-.,^. are mentioned in the record of this case. These cards
were encased in plastic and came ^r< ith a b^ -code certified by 1'rofe^.sional Sports Authenticator
(I'S A).
In Noveniber of 2012, ^^lr. _:=Zegarp the dlccision to sell thiese cards via Craigslist ads.
He placed. one in the, ,,;ew 'Vork one the Clevelandl area, ar3d, one i:rF the Columbus area.
For this ad he utilized aliases. -.,qe e^[so use. trac phomes fnd untraceable eniail addresses. There
was a reason for this behavior. The-re are niMerous examples of persogzs using Craigslist to lure
and kill individuals. Most ^amousl FT is t.he =3oston M^Aica_Student. Phillip Hayes Markoff, who
used Craigslist to entice women to _: ae-a h: •^;^ avA thc^n he vjould rol:•, them. One of those
encounters ended in r .rsu:°der. At the tirne Reg_.n's E.iE ilizatiop of Craigslist.,l2ichard
Beasley was laring mcn to r;ob site:^^ Er^ Jh::f., advertive^l oc_ °^raigslis^ and i^urderir^g them. All
told he murdered three r1eii and tr=`_:;d to kif_.^ another. Most recently ^, wonaan has claimed as
many as twenty-two rnurders bv luirAn t; m.^^^ ^^ thi; ougl^.^?_ Craigslist ads.
Forrest Ewing responded to this C^ ^.:gslist ad, plaoczd by Mr. 'Rcgan. Ti-iey agreed upon a
very public place to rneet, ^ ban-k 1.;" Delav: ^-:re 'Coa.r=_^y, Ohio. Mr. F^_qan wore a very conspicuous
Aiiierican illag shirt to the meetxng. ::^orresz Ew:-ng withdrew the agr°ed upon eight thousar,d
seven hundred dollars. Mr. Regan llcft and 'orrest Ewing wer^t home. He placed the card on
EBay. Within a few bovrs, -people contactc:.i ForreGt F,wing to let hi:-n know that the card was
2
fra.ndulent. Forrest Ewing went stro^;^ght to ::ie -police. The police co:.tacted Mr. Regan and he
made an atter_r:pt to pay Forrest Ewing ba^ l-I the money he owed. The police would not accept this
payinent and turned the m- atter ov^;^ to the rosecrtto,° in Delaware t:;ounty
The police investigation also u-ncov:re 1. the ::act that Pra;ik 'has sold cards in Mentor,
Ohio and Bergen, New Jei ^^ey Neit-hie-r jur -dicGion -prosecwted Prar,;:- for theft and forgery. Frank
paid os offered to pay br^th ^arLie` s;1 those .asF^s tr^^. e_n.oriNs^'E4,ey w=,^^e owed.
B. .S'tatefnent 0,''the Ca;y e
On Decenniber 7, 20,12, ^,n ,nidictme ^t vvas fi?ed bY ='_-he Delay:;^are County Prosecutor's
office charging Mr. Regan ^^^itb or:..- count .ft`°,_eft in vio^°^tio^^ of R.'^. 29i3.01(.^.)(3), a felony of
the fourth degree and ore count of*^^°^or lation ol"R.C. 291".31(A)(3 ), a felony of the
fifth degree.
An arraignment was, "ne db^-,fore Honorable Es^^^:re't Kr cger oii January 28, 2012. Mr.
Regan was re?°ased or, ii.is own r^c^Jgf i;zar_=.;e. Att.orri-ey VVSl1iam C--axner f;-1ed. a notice of
appearance, d.manded discovery, :^=questW : a f_:otice of 404(b) eviei,;nce, and requested a bill of
parti.culars.
Anaot:.on in limine was fak^l. by A:^:.^.^.rr.-,y Cf^anne,.° on May '', 2011 This rnotion sought
to exclude evider.ce that Appellant allege^^; sold fzrk-e basz,ball car^^-. i-n iVlentor, Ohio and in
Bergen, New Jersey, that a::P unide ;;ified ,<,!.le_° told Frar_i 7-Wing that he had made fake baseball
cards for two men in Ohio, anc, the =;rinnin^^a: record ofM.-r. Regan'ti :.ssociate Paul Sabitino. The
state respo-nded that other acts wer4; a^'^.nisv 'b1e bec^;use th.;y showed a pattean of coriduct. The
state argued that the second auonyrr-:ous c^-a`.: W^:3ald come i-a becauss° it wa=. not hearsay. Finally,
the state conceded that it was not g:-;in;; to ^-_ier,'ion tl^lle c=:^^^=iYGal record of,--ppeliant's associate,
Par4 SabitiTao. This irtatR:er cnme b;..i'ore th^ ;ou,.tjt on June 6, 2013. e.^n Junfi 7, 2013, the court
3
overruled the motion, sta.tir gi* wo.n,id allo r.- 404(b) evide-ace on the issue of deception, and
intent, and purpose to defra:a.d or iznowledgy. or iaci b_itatioff of arai-A
On Juty 25 and 26, 2O13, a ;^r ^ triz : was hee% in rhe l)elawa^°e Cnunty Cogn.mon Pleas
Court. Tlae state prese^^ted testimon_J srorn Porrest F,wing, patrolrna;; Cross, Ron Florey, Jason
Nedrich, Detective Ray, Detec_ive ^:^<_eyno`'-.^ s, atid St.Jve Sy;;taleri. ane defense presented no
witne:sses, The defens° pre:.,,;nted a motio.^-:. `-'or a;cqaa_t;al f-;diowing s:le state's case.
Following a brief deliberation, the .iry -foun:+. Mr i_egar, gu j.ity of both counts in the
indictmea t. Sentencing was set for A-ugu.st :28; 2012'1.
On August. 28, 2013, TVIr. !-Z:=:-gan sentenced by the FlJno-rable JLtdge Everett K-ra.eger.
The following sentence °.vas in^^o4^^4;d; a te^-. j e^- fiv ,. yea.r4^ ^;o.^aa^.ui^.:-,y con-trol^^ with the conditions
that he pays restitutioii, -oab^ the co :ts of prs ^:secution., and sorve one ^ sundred and fifty davs in the
county ja:i's.. Trial cou.r^sel fided a ncrtJce of .peal, c^o-clceting statemcat and order for transcript
that same da.y,
Ors Septernber 6, 20)13 , Arl_-r;llant qu:..^•sted -:hat -h€: jaill se:.::,nce be suspended pending
his appeal to the Fifih DistLL-ict ,'-7oui-# o'`At_^ eal4. Tlk::; sta'-e opposed yaid rrotion on September 9,
2013. On Septernber 16, 2R^ ^^.3, t^.e ^:11 cc^..t :^^ s^;t bo4.:. at f-i^teen tho _xsand dollars cash, surety or
real estate. The bond was paid the ^^-arne da ^. ,
The transcript and 40,e aece--.ri iri th^s matter v:,cre'-:a`ed on D.cember 6, 2013. A request to
extend the :irne to fi le tb e rner.` brkc f 5. as ^..ecE on D .;^cer _b er 2 6, 20^ ^ 3. Tll i s was gran ted. On
January 16, 2014, a seconcl i-eques:- '.uas nn.; de bo ex'^.,;;rid tz.:_; t3fne to flile a-,Tier4t brIet. This was
also grante^J. On January ? i, 2014, a third ^ nd fima; Y°equest was made to extend the time to file
the merit brief.
4
On Augtist 28, 20 1 45 tl^e F^'; h Dis . ;t -lourt of r -cipea1s aff rned t:he conviction and the
sentence, Nav; Appefar-,t seeks an °^^peal : t^^^s
5
1II. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION OF LAW
A. Proposition o,fLativ #1: THE FIFTH DISTRICT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THETRIAL COURT'S OVERRULING OF APPELLANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
a. Standard
A motion in limine is a tentative, interlocutory, precautionary ruling by the trial court
reflecting its anticipatory treatment of an evidentiaiy issue. State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199,
200-01, 503 N.E.2d 142 (1986). The established rule in Ohio is the grant or denial of a motion in
limine is not a ruling on the evidence. Id. The ruling is preliminary and thereby requires the
parties to raise specific evidentiary objections at trial in order to permit the trial court to consider
the admissibility of the evidence in its actual context. Id. "At trial. it is incumbent upon a
defendant, who has been temporarily restricted from introducing evidence by virtue of a motion
in li.rnine, to seek the introduction of the evidence by proffer or otherwise in order to enable the
court to make a fmal determination as to its admissibility and to preserve any objection on the
record for purposes of appeal." Id. at 203. Failure to proffer the evidence waives the right to
appeal the granting of the motion. Id, The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests
within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343
(1987). Therefore, the appellate court will not disturb a trial court's evidentiary ruling unless
they find said ruling to be an abuse of discretion; i.e. unreasonable, arbitrary or Lmconscionable
and not merely an error of law or judgment. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d
144 (1980).
b. 404(b) Evidence
Ohio Rule of Evidence 404 sets forth a general bar against the use of character evidence,
stating, "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a
6
person in order to show that he acted in c^ ^=ormity tlierewsth It rn .yT, however, be, admissible for
sother purposes, s-Lich as proo f Cst Yr:.;:;6ve, 63s ? Ors^iLl7l ;'., 1nt -nt., prepan-ailon, paas, knowledge,
ideritity9 or absence of mistake or cc;;ident.;" O.R.E. 404.
R,C 2945.59 provides:
In any c-rum, <: l Yas}.° w1nicl7 1.."ie defe^.:=ant's niotive or irterrt, the absenceof mistake c:- accid°=:9t on hi's pw•t, or the dufendant'^s, scheme, pla-a orsysterrf in do€-ng a-n >^,ct is a4:= y acts of the de=eradart which tend toshow his m_ Liv or ;ntent, a'bsenF: of ^r=sstr:,lte oi- accident on his part,or the de : rdana's scheme; Aar ., or .°;rsterri in doing ^:he act in question
,may be proved, F^r^ =^I-ier thh ; are contemporaneous vvith prior orsubseqzrent t;'ier.:to; :^ot=ralt^: ;"arf=^ing t1hat vt3ch proof ,`nay sl-iow or terid toshow the commissh Yi ol`an :he;- craine by d"ie dererEe^-^rt.
Section 2945.59 is to be strFdtB cu.;.ytrued, ga.f:st tYA^^ St_atE^, and to loe conservatively applied by a
trial court. State v. DeYlorc-;, z iC,: Ko St, 3 1^'i, 194, 50' N.E.2d ,.256 (1987).
The first step F s¢o °;als.4,thea. fic oth,^ ^act s evidence : s relev:ant to making any fact
that is of consequerica; to the ta m-^ :_ the actrUn mo. ?. or less -01robable than it would be
^vithoz^t th . e v i d e n c.e, 0 R. .^6 0 l. s'¢^E. n e_f st€-, is ^^he.r^er e-^^?de^c e of the other
crimes, wro-ngs, or acts is pres.{-nte^k -c pro' ,, t-..n charact4:-r of khe a.c£.,aseca x'_I order to shodv
activity in :'donrorrmty t Aercwbfli o. y l^th^, hC other act., evidence 's present; df or a legitimate
purpose, .;l £ch as those stated in p;r"A.R. ^^^.^ :5b;: The Ih^^K: ^3te,31s t^^ `;'^-sid•^r whether the
probative of the othe acts e.:,le -ric;e : sa, bsta,,,i:} al ly r=ut }.Veigh.^d by the danger of unf air
pre9-adice. -ee O.R.E. 403; v. 11,14 Os, io S_ ;d 521, 1;, the syl'abus,
C.
Tl'_•J appefla''lt li d%, ir tlt:_, it_ ^11a`i_ ?e 4:£} p? '; Cnt 1_ e,=rat fit"'sm, 1nftoduCkng evidence of
twc other sales al`egedls, p.,.wat.rd by t':= AmpelL:-nt. Onw ofthesi^ was i-r; Mierrtor, Ohio. The
other rr^^cid<,ns_ occ.^.^Ted in E",e i 7ew Ye-rk (7. ` y , <f Yt..nken.^.. New Yer°^c. Th i<= motion was ovei°i-uled
by the triai co-rt ors Jun.; F, 'G _: 3..
7
lt was renewed prior to tria: and a?...qvest fo.- a st.d.:nding ob;-.^-ction was granted by the
trial court. T.P. 13 at 1-I1.
d. Other Incicle;.tE
The mentor 3nciden^ involved=asp;a;-^^Nedrici=. Helhad respor_d.ed to a Cra:gsiist ad that
listmd a 19,`;^ ^,Aic, icey ^.%.anti^:; c.cret. I''1'.. ai ;'ineN° 13-1f;, The rerlr^;?n had lis ted'.his name as
John Smit1h, o:,P. 127 at line 11. 1-le liad a -^J-_,oi,,e nmnber with an ^i^_ron arca co de. TP. 127 at
line 6-8. Afte-° some back and ort;., the tw. pa.aties u ^;rec^ ;_ip€sn a t;-riee. :t'P. 12.5 at lines 1-4.
They agreed to meet at v bad k.n l4:^-nzor., i:.do at 100 P.V.? tbe nex;. Clay. T1'. 126 at lines 2-8.
S ut t.be card up onTbey met and Jas,on gave F. Uiq t hf; s" 00' do? ars. '4P. } ; 2 43 , 3. son tb = j n
. ^ 7- DeBay b@^.t ^^ieT took it ^.i.^:6.. He tIIR,:i.: c;o11tai eC% the Mentu -,po?lcs 3 . I.r . 1419 at lhws 3 -16 .
The New Y;rk i>ciden ircJ.zded a., - , ew Jeisil-:y sfac t_voo_pe; who was an avid baseball
collector. TF'. 183 at b`ines 4_1 . F'..: sG w ad on C,raigs .:,t for Pa N_. r_ckey ^Aarttl> card. T.P. 185
at fines 12,15. He cafl"ed t1h;,. M.w o ^C an, .. n"rnbe., anci Mlked wit., an o!-jer man. T.P. 186 at
liiie:; 6-24. His fa^her in ?a;37 ^,,rCets ,^.iA_flh th-^. ma;'l anJ gets 3'<fe card, ^Aeve i:^^en. goes and gets the
card. T.P. 191 at line.o 2312,': f. fe;; mont :lprcr he ^earns that the ^:; a.rd is a fake. TP. 195 at
lines 2-3.
e. Tbis,:9t;...,r- t_, E nci? V' > ;, 1N%o 'elevan# ?_Jy2des~ 404(4)
Th-; trial cour( iT- ir°..,l,,. stp:,ed w_,a.9 classic 4 `:34(b) c:viderxce. The appellate
court s'4l.mrna,rPl31 uphelfi. ill° trl al c., t;:rr.s d,; , dsi::^'1 w_^^i_C94b. any sIzgT1ifl,,nant analysis. It must mean
tlaat it goes to such as proof of -no :1e oT;; F^Er^1tV, ^^^te^:_;-s pr°pa.ra.t`.ora, pi-;n, icnowledge5
identity, or abser°^ce ofir gst;:i.e or r). R._.E. ^,A 1-_ o wevcr, r:;.ere is cv?_dence that cijts
against eu+:,i'E c, f those ea SC1:`;s, 1r4 _wr.:'.,v _ +', fl'_',.^ cc'..E:r't &:}3t t°"_t't ev#d:,ns.;:; out as lrrele'Varlt,
8
Detective Iteynoids., a decc.-ated vj ° hero, is ailcs^;ved to vest:fy regarding his
investigation, but tlpe,;tiry ts- left tc, their ov: a ii-nag4nnatiora whether C;;- not N1iro Rcgan- was charged
in that case.
Jason Neciriel5 is a1iowed to 'cesfify $hal, ^e go-,. a r_ike card, t=_.t not t-hai Mr. Regan paid
him in flii" when found o,,jt the --rd wa„ nrs_::nng. =ae ax.<_w was Tc^ -I to testify that no
charges were ever filied against M. T^tg^.r.
Steve Spitaleri, a. 1^,7c-w ;erse=; state aooper, as atlo#yJed to tess.4 that he received a fake
Mantle card, blit not thu„ no J r^^:> were } ed, Erl rCrgeii.
Th., s..eate ni-akes c' flh'^; fact t.:;t1t3o:;:5 ;; dd2'es;:es and traa.e phones were
allegedly by N-1r. R ,gE.n. T°ie: :e a-re c^ .air_:iy less then l?efarior,:s- reasons for not war?ti-rig
strangers ri y-aling on Cr ig_;yi.st io ave es. :. .. y caur t ::;.°sonaa,.` eniaii oc privae,^ c,11 phone rl-timber. If
this behavior ;s pA°oof of af;-aud, o_: ;i-nusz.-or=dler iy Regan :: ontac:ed the police in both
Ohl.o juri;`_•.set:9129 wher3 he _'sec d r we. . io',^k1rg a=or b3ni.
B, Prol3osifior Tri - FIFTH } .I S' UC I ERR:ED P4 Ap'f'iRAUlllG THEIRL-ALCO ;R >'S .Es1IS1.: i E CL4Mt g h-EDI .'"END1bI\rT INIIIS CROSSElANiINI-ATtON ViC^L Z 1:')N''F HS S-IXTF AME11h1UAEN," RIGHT TOCONFRO7T ATICr:°.; CUA ANT'EED Il J DER 'fPH3 UNi`=a'ED STATESC^,'^NSf,'. TI ; t. ICFN
a. R ^^;`^, : to '°o^ o °;t A : e us e Ys
The CBppo-tt3_^^^ tyfo wts:ness 's a eerr"3?:`s;;srleni of ':he rigInt to confront
®r3e?s acCuser:;, PoiiZi!crJ. 1 ^'.^l.S, .;° ' 0 E^.^.S. 400 (l 96`7)9 .^"'ht!:' PSj 2 O-q1o St.2d 294
(i9i1).
b, Tric: ?:v.2ri ' sr.ratec;' ^)e .^,2claL!'s::?f ht to Co 2fron icr°user
On two sep2rra'e occasions -L7'e trlaf fi.i_i$ed `.V'_4; AppeIL':.1t S 5i^;his to et;rlfrC3^'lt hls
aeeuser. The court i:^r^t t^;-,^rs^ o ss .,; arniript ; ^;bouz the ®f" er to pay back
9
the alleged vi^:¢in^s in the e^:^;e. 7:IJ', 7.-^'1. .^e ^-ourg ^ii^:;d a.iy &c:a.ssio3 of the repayment to
whether or 4^oi the Appei1anal testlfi:•n-d. Thbdef^=;ndzs`k:- could not .,ros5-exan:ine any of the other
witnesses t1hat he a`3e^edly sold th3e CardF. or, ;^he`+n^,e^- is^; of+ered i . pay,, ^:ern back. The court
then disallowed any disa_u.s<:^or, of :..ii^.'they ri,ninai <hare;es were i<<ed in ffie two other incidents
not the su; ljee', o4l"}isi^: Mdact.;_nen-t T.-Pe 44 fiz,eS 4-8.
C. This R8g.'/.3i To _, f)f",^`"Ye^72t '11
l,s !1GcuseP
While the Sixth Amlendme ."'f to th- J.S. Co..'stituf.on, and Ohio Evidence Rules
guarantee the right o^-a..^ri.:^;;n^ ' c` ia^t:. -.;^ ^^rnf ^^^_t t!.^ ^^v^^ness u.^; aga9^; t him for the biases
theymCS y io5d9 E"t4i°' £,I$CV,^" ar #La ii%, °+i3'1df^ ..ti,.zde ^s ^11-1p'^ r q^ y^ ^^;v seiZSOwS=.;';.' ,Dle ^,xC'xi1FS on C'iross`
examination based on eonf _^rn abo -,t, c;ther #°.ings,, haYassm.: at, prejudice, confusion of
the issues; or the re.e^varn,. =,>t"the ~qui._ry. _ Feli;vrr.- v. V,.s> Ea:rsdfc'> 475'r,S. 673 (1986)y State^-`
v. G3°een, : a.n-_-iiton App.Na. C-8 5^^4 (Jut 11., 1990;
Th- essence offlhe ,tatp's <..: Fwvs :iat _Ap<-ei1an' .sef;audeC? Mr. _;wi;^g by creating this
rookie ea?`^ hI?"riso.11f ^.nd ta''^pe}ang 11 zu^ tb; cover. (:` 7:1 altet`na`:t ve, kricvl that ttle card was a
fake. L°^eria3.i1l'y'th„ fact r1aA z"se ?3a^ ch:'d ;ed in lNi'le`ntoc; Ohio is :`<.levws% because it zXTouid
have been 5.-b.e same edir^^ir,,_d code, ^^ 3e.%:,f, u.^pei^^.^.^t not al;;^v,^;d 4-0 e;;oss-exannine:^ason
Nedrich i< thi s regard'. _'Norvia.s he :^.sk D-teet = :.^ ^^'^e^ rtc.:;Iis whether or n,A they filed
charges. Certainly 517 this dz;L;r --peaed " y ,Ohe v^.,ithAr ::-.^,YaYd '.,04e state could have
asked wh^- they d9d ^? ;=t ^^1^4 ^°,h, µg^T.3e `_°^ at :Sdge {;? r^',w^:g these ^^_atter^. to be forbidden denied
tbis -ApiaeE:aint of a -,`a;Kq tria'
The tr<aljudige is ^incorrl-et :'^ this evjrNnnc *,s zt 7I-I^"e^cv^=^^ncP relatesto the
stat-, of ^^^^-rid of Mr, Regar;,. A ^,pe, ,;_^ fiad ;:^esv goiv, to o#;:;r to rpp,-y the entire
a^runt. i'T ^t , s the ty^ieii _-a:^d, t_; ^^C°^-s0 ,vi t^.k^^ the oz^.^.y a.n..:^^w disaF.^:fe^r. This did ^aot
1 ()
happen with Mr. Regaii. Ha; ^^^pe:: ted law e(,dorce^^^^ser't a4td ^-rmcie every attempt to eorrect
the 9ita.iati^. ri.
No orie could possibly say "Ilav;n^ ^ Kas e-vld,nce vr. uid car^^^-,,se the ju..y. Detective
Reynolds could te stify exactly why they ('1v. no- pursue c a^ ges. Steve Siipaleri could testify, as a
m-embe." rfI^..^;T enfor.°ennerit9 why Ds,,: t !",tto.1ney i`z Yonkery 111d not movb forward with
his case. TP_e;unr wo-a1o not be ;A fafit, thd s int-61.'mat4on :-vou1c1 help the Jiiry in their
deiiheratpc>ns.
C. Ps^^osat--^^7p #3: TF F1:7'-TI= ',F)IS T .T°.1CT ER`'ED IiN11' ^.TF1R'°,4ING THETRIAL COUR 'l S ^FUS,.L :,0 A1'-.i_.0,,4I AI'PEL?=,AN s TO RJUSE 1HEISS^ ^ ^^ ,XEPA-V JENT 11- 0 ' HE ALUF GE7 VIi , TlMfh, OR 'i"I-1E FACT^HAt OTHER JU `";^YSDIC r 40 NS ^'%1D ^^^ IT' FILE _'PUMfNAI, CHARGESt^GAINST ^^,!s
a. '5Lgn%^^.^Y,;/
`I`^^ Ohio Sup+_-et--ne C-'ourt .9.,;.5 st-atz-: `°` she of ^^:... i [othormaetsl evaden-ee lies
within the "road drgea-ict_or, c'f ._e C _al .,oi,;: . ard a g c^aiew "_-rig ,o urt ;{i®ugd, not di,,-,tr.i1h evidentiary
decisions in the ovs^^nce of an o."dis;<<refion that meaEed material pre;udbCe." State v. Diar,
120 Ohio Ste3d 460, 2008900 N.E. 2d .' 65, a1 66 (Ohio 2008;). See also State v. Sage,51
31 Ohio Sf.3d 173, 510 vI.E;2(_ 34;- ; s}'$ 7oa_agra :r ti3;-,.s o1 the s-::^°ar^us'`s;""he admission. or
exCiasion .aiorv;tP',%ant ew de.^'ace yes_: ^xa.thxr :^tZe _^ouo<; of r-',Ie trial court"') "Abuse of
discretion" has b,-:,en dResc1::bCd as 1 -uidl":;".. a -,n-iE1me. :yhat'a,Ob`s a 6ESor.a1dr ; %sonYng I'^fl`oCeSs."
AAAA Entf., r oc. v. R.'W'vc.r C_ .^^Tnjn^-;, Isrbap-. r^^cmz.nt `;'orp., 50 Ohio St3d 157,
161, 553 N.E2d 597 (1090)..
1j
b. /I taatys ts
The 0ilio. Rules of E4ndencr, state, relcvant mean^, evidence having any
terideney to make the exiq:;nce of :s-xy fact 4at is ofcons..y:;uenc,e tz, the determination of the
action morr probable orless pv^ba:iI e i.ha.. it would be w:tho-at the -,.widence." O.R.E. 401,
Appelia.n.t is ehar;e<al with ;.orgegy : zd t.heft. 'Unde1 theW forgery stas.-Ae the state had to
pwove that Appeiyant with p ;;.:°^ :)sti :o defra^A sr knn win, '$e was fi-:^:. _iitac_rg a fg•audl, utter or
possess Fv+Tiih puq)ose to ..str a_a'y v51ti.'s°pg kEroiA's Y i be #iake. O.R. _ . 29, 3 .31
Unjer the theet s`a.t^<.ie ahe s`ate ha:s ,o s1h(3w .: ,=":at ! `.°. Regan knoV1i"?gly deceived another
or c°aned =.noter to be de"bed by any hi.ke o_^ rrh,'_eada,' ; represt^`;.tatiert, bv witls^i®lci9ng
11xf.f5sTT'tat'con9 ^ ^ pre',Ie('atl'!g ^.:;1C ihe ; ta ni ,v. :..;Uz:'iTlg r'-a1` ` s4oi1, or `y any other coY,idLlet, act, or
®in:.ssion Oiat creates, eonBnms , or peTema.W:' a fa.£,e in:._ _essicsn .:rl anotb:er, ineiulng a rMSe
impressiu.ri. as'^ca iaw, va iue, stp-ie ^Tr n.._rnd r c4.herc 'biec :F-e or sub:z^etive.- fact. O.R.C. 2913.01.
The R.avt Nat the Ag5:>ea ant ;os.ghr . repay S _. people that . _ .,e^ve... the cards wo-Li1d show
that he I a<;"a_ed the puâ"t^C_s,d ;T'a':+' fll :C)se;, +ivo it"iCt'Wdur °.:. e`le fa:;: t'-at a'aCSse two sn dlvldL1.alS
never `vem rmawd as d:'tdm, in a . daitna:. or__.pla.. F shc ,',; that at 'east those police depi^vtrnents
arc! prosecutors ^ff.,<;es believed t°--A z1herE; vas +1G to defCc.?A in flat35^ cases. The police
departn1efaG.S 2..'ad "?°ouE.Cutc;_,; 1r _f.r,d ffi ,f6rethot' ;t'lt to see tht was a civil
case, not a -;r:mgnal one.
lft'.iu ',.rd:.iya {-.ot c: °, AppeOn', wcuid r . . have rcf ,,rned ^heir phor;e calls. fle
would have taken their na^' <.'.Ly and ; fs thr :1raS^lct ,_-^. ^ F rN^ ta 1^i :/ wous^: ni-A have made an
offer to G zr,tum the ^^one lht each ons, tk-o p,..- ella, . trie .. ^O i-nake ;he sit:..^:tion , ight. As his trial
atto-rney st:.3tes., he vra, ab9sinessr..:an who .raa: try^r,s to X.e.ake the 4;-.^u^.ti,.^G^ right. TP. 1Q--l^'. In
^^,g^.
the Mentor case, he paid t1-s< pc .-rsc-; ba.:;k g fu: _. T. 11.10 ot lhnes S- -: In the New York case, the
person has -ncf beer paid back. Id. 9,1' h.=ies -8,
The fact that the v^ v ^r1 ;,a.-s° kr'.. s nvr pflz.»ecu:.Rd is suflp;F :sang g iven the Ifa.ct that the
cornplaina,.¢ in that case =s a Nt-w crsey €= ;e troo.pe-r. Ta-1, 182 ot ir'n;e 7.
both..
_ .^ ^ , .. . „ :11 ^^an ^Jcases, . M . fb^y:^^,s"^'^c .E, -ub'V- ,.^, t'^re:'.^.,.r:, and offered to pay
the =.ndi^^id.aa.i; back; Hs3w-;Ver; tl?c : cu?-t ;_ --itr« thl- ;nqu-:cy to tf-ie `r:ict tha; there were cards sold
to these iv-ndividnals flr. Yf, .ak d Me^,w ::)r, Oh.i-o rha.t f, ^;re clairr f;d to lbe $akvs. This 'iimitati®n
by 1he wo3i',-t kvpt :eleF;'ana `.;'<7idt,k1G: ^,-,uE o! jfln y: of ti%l-jury. TC' :AJt, eei3deT1ce oi Mr. Regan's
complete ,:--id utter xac.k .)f _Tia.i^ ce the sa. c;fthe..^.^. car I.s:. Evfldefl,,.:^ that would have
cor4s-radict:,,.-A the .wta+e"s ca.s.. agafln.>- h_ a resul r;;. in a`:quitta.'.
D qj/'f 61v4, ^i'J-4 i 1--. FI` T1-I fs:IST`'JCT Ef: =_ED I^^:< AFFIRMING THETRIAL COvR"S '';rENlA-{_ OF,4KFEg-;LAN-l 'S Fe.JILE 20 MOTlO^:T FORAs':QUlr T-^J- _)'Uy' -170 S'_. A _ ^. Fs^ 01V 1DMW ri°°ISUFF_,^CIF;N`fEVIDENCE TO CON' '1C THE E APPE?" LANT fN VIOLATION OF THE OHIOA7-4D t.:'l;N S^I . J^ °:ON
a, s:!,ai :,7
Wi :h ;°espec L to sut'l :le nc^j _;f t:i e , i d-e;ce, <.:si i_..c=en, c 3t^4 a _ercrazt ni.;-a11iflfg that
le^ml stan3.'ard wI. pc-h ;s appliec. to 3 ur^<etl ^ ,r ffi., c....:s:, may :o to E'p fur^ or whether the
evidence ,n legala uf-fi,be :° tff s^ n' C" f ti;," w ve_ ::.fct as a matter 1aw.i5 Black's Lavv
Dictionar; (6 Ede 1990; 141'r3. See also, 0° me R. 29=;A} ;_miotaon fc^ 'udgrr,erzt of acquittal can be
granted b-y the trL,l a afl°j fl4 ;fie hIo "Is-r_"fie ic, ra to uisrtam a 1--r- e.isence,
sufficflency. s.s a t<°-st 1. :,°,ga11y sy'.^^FlcPe-^;A t^F sustait': a`. erdlct is
a q^;^^pstion of lavv. Stc:.;.e- > 62 2hic> ,t. 4>'6., 5' ;^.^. 3g}' 125 N.l-•',2d 1 18 ( 1955). In
add, ztioai, a coflv^cfiog:: b s_sF,;: or, le ._ vide.zc-, corist1-%.tes a. clerd aI ,-)f due nro cess.
Tibbs v. T ''3T`fda, 4`7 U. S. ' I E T 9S, t < th.rr 44:' U.S. 0% (1979) ,
1^
b. F'.::aq! ti,ry 3^ r;, %gr>
Forgery requires that a FJit. . Eraud in their Inea_t, c1C;,'-,te some writing 2,part or in
whole. O.;? .C. 29133 1. The state , iled to prc"s%e tt:a` ^pp: slwt hay:r any ^iad in s;i•eatiiig this card.
There is acoi-iiplete 1aek oJ`evpder,•.c ^I-I tg ^ fayt.
Irb reviewing a ba,ed' 7-on, *-lie ; "f:c,ien1-°:, of ;he eyriden::_ , , "[t3he rel?va_r.t inquiry is
whether, Prie"G` V&ewin; <ie o,v1dlcY1c;; 3n" a ?} .t '"I®St :;3f.It? ;.bie a.® `_h 3^^SG;; xt? ^Ti :;.Yay?`atiE,',nal trier
of fact eotdld hav., fbE_.--)d es=.er, .a5 6et <<:^t of .. pF•over, beyoy;d a. reasonable doubt9,
State v. J,ni^^^, 61 Ohio St. y.x 25, 91 74 NIF id =F92, paragraph two c;_Fthe syllabus (p 991}.
Th're iS abS'9:atc `_y ;'t 3 lyT^..i thr. )/dT IkF"gan c.omed thl. :.,.A.ad. !°w^one. s'..'ie sfate would
offer that ;`hey need only p'`;:.vp he SyeSs.. ' it -;vith xrps .a, to der "a", ;d th; unsuspecting
Catleetor. _ i^i-;, iq c, anr ,,iw`ence `: `aY Mr. Regan f:;new these
cards wen^ fake. The -fa= ^ tha.t i't ^'ic. -p€.`,eb,. tz^.z.,, do: s not mea _ he is gm'lty, Itmeaa_'1S that he
had the mivfortun° of dea! it^ , 1 e.
^1^ ^ ;4c., ^F_,t...::w, a y w,a.J Nf; tc' ?1. ; th },, ther , was a , b. - m^ut.,-t for Mr. Topete
that Mr. R'..gcda:? had SC i 3)o:?^,' 7' P. 215 ,... lh3::.'S 1- 25. dete::t3'!e did n®t coiitact
IY3c Topde in C'a`ifion~^tga, d;=spi,e F°l1 .1te" _",t :;-; his ";-. TP 222 at Unes 8-9
C , ThP '..' ''har ^ ^'
The State fit!;:a^ o lo"sv , tr.u h.j,t. .gm_. kno=d:qg' y deeeive. . anoi,`;:=r or oat<sz.,d another to
P . .^.^ . 7 9.^, +.'zecfylv ,..,,. b.j' ^+. .f 1 . : :2. !(,' n n" Se'::itataon, bs afla'ih.'3ld: ngy 1nlr,,ck,tat?'*^ a. by
yweva^°^t^ng another ^^^rn ac:"iit.ng Afan_or on, ®r_, ;' ar.•' other col c'.uci, o-mrssflori that
creates condirms or poM,tamw a Jf':se irrFp? in anc^'zef, inclu6ng afatse impression as to
law, va1u5,, staie 4 t° m:nd fact. CaR29, 3.0 1.
14
IVa CONCLUSION'
Fe'^` the reasons ^^se,..asSed 6,,'>ovG, `:`..s' c,:Se t. =4matters ^A pL1b:4c and great general
interest 'u.l,,;a a sl.ili®a,c n'ls C^^ ^i Alitl %^^i Cq3.,i <l1on,
The appellant rc quc:,ts ?iat this co-u, ,. g:-anis. r s^, rc^ aad :_,JtQw flnis case so that the
Si'i5LIl3o1i,6LflL SssiwJ preil-inte6R 19 tryls 4^73E.+ UWles jW v'.3 Yi@sYbTed li G,h)e 1S.AN1t.!t5.
F^1-ic S. Ailen 0";,073384)7 1 3 '+.i1 F Ye,^ S t.
Cofi^^^^^bus, 0^::tio 431f-i;5Tel 14)Fz.y iNo. (614) ^;45-78`73:^01 ^^S ^L F^^Z .^Pe:,ELI.f^^NT
03F SERVICE
I c^^rtlry <4f^u ^s^:z 1^^ct^^b;-^ ^'C:: a ^:^py of t^s. jbrcgolr^ : was s.:c^^vertid via regularU.S. mail, pposlage prepaid to the Dclawa.^c! Co^,mty Ps-ose„G:tor's O-^'x^^ce, North Sand-tiskyDeiawarc.. Ohio 436,1`^.
Eric J. Allen (7`=^F7338"?-7 13 >-:^u,^h S t.
Cj^ L ^L.ll'`.S
a.cj ...,. ,;0I4^ A3®4840Fax L~
^ 5 ^' /i^e^,^ ^i^t^^. ( 6 1 4) ^l.^': .
COT-If 1'4S`Hi. ^^^ ^ APPr, LLANT
i15
APPENDIX
ST .".vl"E OF GF-; Iln
Fli^ T1-Ap pet (ee
..vs
FRANK REGAN
D°': F i !
/' ( !
;HOFIF` LLA`T'E U i:. ^i -T
^.
. .... 3 s_.. ^ .^:1. - <irn:.^P7 ^.
kt . . .e6s7^^ idF
C^^e No. 13 C/°^-^ ^^ 0067
C Pi IJN
CHARAC..:.".
`1.-'
DAT _--_ 0:_:'J'JB:r^ ^"I` ENTRY:
Ai
For
ware CouE^y {^ o^rrt of..^ur. ; iG 9eas, C: >e a^t^. d2CF"J i T'.^^ ?
'- ^ :, Ti^-, ^ '^..^ .^.
,.s_ ..^.> f-
^ - .. ,
i--
^^
ror u
'_ENh li.^ .^^ !W J. 7, '..<TD^ ^ . .
^ ..r.L^,. ^.-^. i..:^::. i^..^ 3 :..
^N O"
L'E..
^-
^• c l;aor
. . ^^ ^ ^`_ ... . ... ..
i^urts. ^" . . ^ IF::Yi3 ^,.<. • ,.,,,^„F... ._ ..-.,..... ...`i^^V+..A.. . .
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAA 08 0067
Hoffman, :P J.
2
{111 Defendantmappeller;t Frank Regan appeals his ct^nviction entered by the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Pleintltf-ap pellee is t'he state of Ohio.
S°fA`f`EeOEN`": OF THE F-ACTS AND CASE
(%2% Pn Novernbe^ of 2012, Forrest Ewing arranged for the purchase of a
baseball card via CraiOslist frorr- Appe°lamtr. 7'he; c ar^:l vvas encased in plastic and was
alleged ce-rdfied b®, Professional Sprorts f?uth,enticator. Appegler;t used aliases to sell the
cards, as ^fell as, an untraoeable, smail eddrass :^,nd co-1; phone nurnber.
`errest Ewing, paid $3,7001"or the t urchase of the proffered Mickey Mantle
baseball card from Appellant. Ewing then placed `:he base`:;.^ll card on EBay, and
subsequently learned the ca^d fraudulent, Ewing xeperte:°? the trensFctAon to the
Westerville Pe9Pce Deparfrnent, ,Aiho then I-ontaoted Appellax t.. Appellant offered to
repay thv, money owed. The investigating effifers would not accep8 fhe payment,
without bringing charges. Appellnnt was then inf<`, cted on one r;z ^^nt of theft, in violation
of R.C. 291 3.02(A)(3„ a feleraa;° of thA fc,,.urth degrep and ome eetint of f-nrgery, in
violation c^t R.C. 2913.31 (A)(3), P. feiany of the fift^^ degree.
{T41 The poli-.e investQ^;,,at9on u f^^covere:^^ Appellant's -qrevicus sale of similar
fraudulent baseball cards in !'Oerfor, Oh„, and Be;-,^er?:F New Jer-:ey. ^Ne,the.rjurgsdletien
prosecuted Appellant du,^ to his offer to rapay both parties the r^ioney paid for the
fraudulent cardsv
Appellant fii ed n rnoE.aon i^: ;Irnsne to exc'ude testxssiony regarding. the sale
of the fra.,&flertit baseball cards in Mer4'kor, OWrr and, Bergen, New pMersey, to exclude
testgrnor°y regarding a te3^;phone. cell to Frank EvJn^; informin^., Ewing the caller made
1; PDelaware Go^,^rf^y7; Case 9^,^:,. 13 Y^^^^^^^ 0_8 ^°0^,7
fake .baseb^^^ cards "io§ two ',en id. 0,^hla, a,.'zd tc the ^^im9i`ial s'Iis z;3ryof
AppeRfant`s a::asoa:iate A-Iaui Sabifanoo
^ ^^a< L.%?.^.^s N hgs3.ory dP'e °a
,M^} ' ^`ao'e^..^' e S i ';,Pi5^ .,^i not ? s^e '^i$^'^t 8ar^a$a %
^tLa^
Sabitino. Vsa 1^^^^gment En-:ry of June 7, 2013 , tg; a triad soun., overruled the motion in
limine, holding Evi^enlco 404,b, rovu;ed ^he tae; adra10tted ;,-nthe
issue of deoopti^^ii, intents pu; pose t^j Cietraud, ^ zokd^G^ ^^^^ },..d ..A^. aL;,)n of 1rau^^
illi7} The rna^=^ar Proceeded :=s Jui . trlal. Ta,@ jury r tuw:^ed a verdict oi gurHty on
both counts of t.he in&ctr^enr^^
(Tj8) The t.iia< ooun'.^: a te,°nn of five years oorr;;^uniYy
control with the oondidor^s h^ pay restitu"Olion, ^ay Iffie co* :s of prosecution and serve
one®hundred and t'ifty days i= ^ the couinry;^^^,
(19) Appeilan^ ^^pt^ais, a::s^ig::irsg as efrror,
(110) 'el. THE TRaA::, ^O"^;R'„ ^^^,JSED i 'b iN OV^^^RUiLiNG
APPEiv.LANT'S MO=s 9C;N IN :^^iMiNE.
(111) 11. TF5^ ^^IX.. COI.SR.. ^^. .i3 N '.eMITIN(,- THE DEFENDANT HIS
CROSS EXAM €^1F^^ ViOLA a ^;^N ^O^ [AS SIXTr > AMENDMENT R; aHT TO
^ONFRO1^-FATi^^ GUAR,^^,,q°^^^D UNDER Ti im ' '1lTED STATES C^.°^NST1TUT7ON0
(9912) "iiz. TIHE TRIA^^r. CC^UR,< B 4. REC;, VV. r-'-N ff RULED THAT APPBLLANT
COULD NOT RAISE k HE x^^^^E 0$.: RE 'A`^^ ^EN^ ^ TO "i";4,E ALLEGED ViC'IlMS OR
THE FACT THAT Oa HEPt JUi4iiSDlCTiO?^S DlE= NOT " iLE CIRiMeNAt=. CHARGES
AGAINST Hltvie
(173) "M THE STATE OF OH'O ; MLED Tj;r i°^^^^^^ ^^^E SUFP^'CGENT
EVfC^EN^E TO CONVICT THE APPELLANT N IM^ OHIO AND
Delaware ^ciinty, Case No. 13 CAA 08 0067 4
FEDERAL CONSTIT UTIONS. FURTi-F'-uR; THE TRiAL COU^^^°--',T JUDGE ERRED IN
DENYING THE ^^PL^ANT S C.,,RIMINA^ RULE 29 hrIOTr^^ ^OR ACQU1T"tAL°'.
JT^iQ AppeIlari€ asserts : ee tria; court erred in ^vp-rruiii°fg the motion in lirhine.
We disagree.
(%IS) Ohio Rule of Ev4de:: ce 404,"B) s tates,
(TI16) aa(13) Other crimes, wrongs or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or
acts is r;o' adr-Ossibie to prove ^°he ^h^irarc^a-r o7^ a r,^^rson in order to show action in
conforrnif/ therewith. It rr:^ay, however, ba admissible aor other Purposes, such as proof
of motive, c^^^o,,tunity intent, ^^^^^°^rb;:`^.r.y)n, plan, knowledge, ider^tiay, or absence of
mistake eor accident. In criminal :^ases, the proponent of evidence tr° be offered under
this rule shall prmiide reasonab-e not€c^:= ird advance of traal, or during trial if the court
excuses pret.raai notice on good cau^:{v shown, of t'ne gene°aI nature of any such
evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
(^°^.^) In Stete v. ^^4^^if^er?.^, 1 3^^ C^^^^o $^^ 3d 521, 20'2-Ohi,^m55^'5, the Ohio
Supreme ^ourt held;
(118) s'The first step ,s to oonsi6.{r whethey the other acts evidence is relevant to
making any f^ct, that is ^^ ^^^^e-quence f^ 'khe daierrrnlr:ation of the action more or less
prohabir, than it vvcWd bp- uF thz: ev,ident:aeo Evid. R. 401. °i°he., s^erd step is to
corsider ;0ether evidenca of tlha, athe.° cri^mes, wrongs, or ac',s is presented to prove
the character of 4the accused in order to {.hovv & ..;V°s,bj ir. coraf^rrnity therewith or whether
the other acts evidence f^. p, ^^^.:,Ited f^-_,- a 'eg@Vrnate ^ tarpose, such as those stated in
Evid.R. 404/883a The Vhird step to co_- sidnr wk,ether the pr&,ativ^ TvaIue of the other
Delaware County, Case INoa 13 CAA 08 06:7 5
^ctts evidence is substant;a1(y ou-:-<velghed by the danger of unfair prejudice, See Evid.R
403." °^T
,19) Here, the evldenc.:.^ of Ap;^eVant p.: evF. +us^y se<'ing f:.'ke cards on two
separate occasions ':n two :ate st .a" was rele^,x:^r~^t and admissible to show his
intent, kno°,vledpe and abserce °Y Fu0,harr:>.^rP-, ^e find the tr€a.I court did not
abuse its discretion ii sdetermrn¢ng tl°^ probative value of the other acts evidence
substant` i r. ufmse€ched Irfe °^ang^r of F.' preG::dlce,
( 4`^2Y^) T^eftst ss,qrnrne, r; c" er:" , lr overnr,led,
H. a rii4;^4^
^21) :^^p^^ellas^t`s se^,o.r._, ai^^E^ tbir: assigned error^`= raise common andE
R`^^eri°elated issu-s; theref.,^ai°e, we. ad:; r^^ ,- tl^^ auragum, er`3ts tG`. ^tl^er,
Appelh^mt ma9ntaiw:--. the c:°cirt ^^^ed,' in limltlrg his cross examination
and the &-,ldence introduced at'bdal Wf-,^nkve to his offer to repsq the purchase price of
the baseball cards and -rs^ fadk. the o'Chei° aur;sdlctions did file crlmunal charges
aga?nst l°sl.f :n.
(!p23) Appell^,.te R,:1e 16 E F ^ ° rl^^tr.
(TI24) "(A) Brlef of the ap,,-.a--l€ant
(4125) "The ap^F8llv.nt sb ;s S^^cl^,;^^a i € ^ it^. ^^d ae l under ,•:e he-.^df31gs and l^^°l the.
order indicated, all of the following:
% ^ a^s^^•;:
s^^•a An ^€'^4k'^^ ;ii^^: s^ 3r^^^^° '^yt`:^' of "E <<^ appellant with respect
to each .,:->^ignr^^^t of error p^°:.Jsente^:^ foi review a,.d the re-,asoms in support of the
®efaware Countiv Case No. 13 CAA 08 ()1067 6
cententiors, with citations to dhe authorhsS stattftes9 and parts of the record on vrhich
'apAel1ant rp-ties. The argument r^^y be p receded by a ^^^rnmary.
(128)
(^^^) "^D) References in f.:";riefs ta ihe record
11^=-)^^ "References in the b^^^s t-, ,owts ol"hhe ; ^^ ^ond shall be to the Pages of the
parts of the record, involved; e.g.r ^^sw :,- p. 7, t44otaor: for Jud^;:.^ent p. 2, Transcript p.
231. ln¢e!^.gsble abbreviations may be Used. I:" reference is made to evidence, the
adnnissfhP.ly of which ;;s in YWerenc^^ shaff be made to the pages of the
transctapr at which the evidence :,^as "de^itifred, ofPp:^edF arr:^ received or rejected."
{Emph^s`,:_a added. r
($31) Appellant's briet ci`..As to thr, f^^^^^in^ exchange OCCUrring prio6 to the start
of trial f^^^^ln.;
fTM^ "[PROSECUTOR =vAIPOG31:`1 1"hb onsa other thing 1. had is a minor
evident^ary issue, the State did.n''t pick up on th[^ untl iast n;ght when the State was
re^^^^^^nr,_.r 'he def^^dant's triai ° iiet, That ^If^^uro ^s just a sr^al,.i; statement regarding the
dr-jendan{ offerr^g to pay the viArn in flhas case dur^^^^ the COUrse of his intervdew with
Detective Ray of We^sterTv,.,9le Oe,,.,^.artnnent. There is a sttier^ent by the defendant,
ras well P^^ a discussion bv hsr, )rney, 'hfl;={'a ar-^Wt torrna^ offers that are made and
there aren't any ^^^^^^tances, bL:. n r .Mg, ^ gWr^.S I ^^LI'd say, the viruft or the
^efer^^^^^ having: ^s to 0d3: pay off V"'Ee ^^i°ti^°n; Forrest Ewing, Detective Ray;^ ^ i x^^`:^= f .,
6ndicates oi, declines that Ws not z.^^ accept stidh al-A ofters he has to
talk t^^ th,!^ Pr^^eo.ition. But we ^^ er^ f Aannirr, an bnnaing that up,
De!aware "t-jounty9 Case Noe 13 CAA 08 0 36r` 7
(733) YWe have the irsenirievi of t,_?e defendant that ^e%-e going to play portions
of as a statement on the part of .^ ^ as -,-. stalerr^ernt of a party op^.^onent. Theregs some
other things in there obviously th :;;t we°re not ,^^ing. to p:ay, ohviously that's one of those.
E do:V^ see how tm hat G>ooles U, t=.. °;fi9th unless, the detendod -^t himself is testifyang in
this case. I woy r^^ about qper^':^:i^ stat rne :lts , P a gur°,.ent^ regarding that and the
evidence ^'Ioesn'^ come in oth^ro s.se.
(%w4) "As ff.-),r as, ! guess, 'Ys pr.,,.Lica. ^^thority, om:^^^ e-,°,dence- rules that I think
^niu ld be appric.-b % Evi ^^^n^ ® ^ : ^^ ^C far ,^.s offering val.:;^.ble oonsider^:taon over
a disput^^ ^^^irr.. ^ wo<^Id arpue '-^at the-0.:, wrou6d apply in this ^ass. I aisc; have concerns
undpr 402 thot Ws rgot relavevit i- fts matter, h:ause i F^^orry ^aihout where .a if we go
into th-at ..,ma, where that'r,a going.:; toz^ad ^js. I kr°ow tG.ece's oh^^iously case law, and this
^o-,Urt is ^^^^^^e of this, ^vp.,, from `>,e Y'^^s^^, ca-seg as far as not corn:rnenting, but
even dis.::rLssfng d^^endaF~Ws der ;^ion n{,-. t^. talk with officers. `^^^o if ^ste stwt discusvng
offers to Daya Detective Ra^.y would rne=fior: acso th^:t h^ gave the defendant multiple
oppnrtur^gVes to krv to c^ntad, hir:l to, try `.^^ set swfm"ethirq, another :^eeeting to try to even
^^eft'^ndpnt ca°ixd °=t^;^^V.ack tr-^:.^, So I don't want to goarrange e. ^is to 6sc .^ss zhi, , .
into that ;bH,$ We,
probative ^^ s`s^^^ . ^^;stantally'^' ^^:3e b 44=: si,. ^^ "Also ,"^ g ^(^^F^^ I ^` ' g e^-"'+^ ;
outweigz .r-d, in this cas:;; ber- i ., I ^,iorvy ra:out,. ^ ^^^ss; the reasons why that
defan^ar-r-'^"s offer w^,=sr^ t cc,,7q.. I°he St,,; : d ..^sn", s3ave to :F^^epx his offer; th^re., are
rnwltip^^ reasons ^^^^iy" obviousiy, we Iflhfink there"s caiminai con^duct here. And f don't
ry =gardiw)g the d9fendant°swant I con:^us3on v" th<^, issua_. :-nJ<,Iea^:?:^g W,
offer to pxq.
Deiaware ^OUnty, ^^^e No, 13 GAA 08 r'^067 8
(136) "Just for the Courts too, obv€^usiy there are two other incidents
that we had in this case. The Court ^^sasaeady had -,,:, 404(B) hearing in this ^atter..
(1e^) "^^ in the Mentor case, the defendant pasd the victim^ $13,000, that w as the
v^lue of that i€sputed clairno A€°a1J zhan r n the Jersey case, thea. ? nd€v€dua9 has not been
paid ^ad,-.. So, ^ guess m-y p efe<°er1ce be nottc, get into 'r.hat ef, al^ just because i,
donat thin'K that`s the issue, the defendan`.`^ rnir€d Ai^rhen this h-appened, and that's the
reason ^€ve°s e bringing that up at eha' po°;`%':,
J , As far as the"And then z Gso ! w:..nt fo p ^.' on thtecC^r=°^ ^3r1- C'a<.^et' t^'€?'!^
^ 404(B) motion, Rvvehave fWasttucted o^ur not icy dsscus^^^, Mr. SabatinoBs cr€rninaI
record. VVe Piso told qkAr. Ewing not ^ cuss the anonymous phone cali indicating that
Porn C91,foar:a riiade t{^;^e baseba€s cards foa two guys in Ohio.a person f
"Thank vot).
(140) "THE COURT: Mr,, Cramer.
(!KI) 44MR.. ^^^ANzER, Vfel_, Yc...^ ^^no., r^v dient °ava.,^ a businessman whose
products `,ur€°;ed vut to bf^^-, bv..' ' -a o", ared his cl1e!":s fi°€e€r rn-oney back. I .°,€'o97't know
how t^a"s not :;,drnee:^^^h-(e, it goes direc'^: r to shov,, his good. intent in this case, that it was
acc9der..° J.
oli-!e corta€ny vlasf.`t `Y4€-.; to retafrt. the€S- rnnone,'^, he xn,^asn't arqu€ng with
them, hc- ,)ffer ed the money
(mi3r e8F• ^^. '^ar - ^ the ^d-d: . :i 61c^^, ^t ^ a e^ x^^ ^5 ^^°^ #^ p. ^€^e of the^ :^ k,^qy^ ^ -r^ ^ a^ C,
reasons ^ivhy lVier,tor decided n .-' to p. ;;swt.= pro r,ecutsr}3 s in thi^^. case and that`^ ^ertairtly
^ fact thst fr: ^^.,y `.^C':^^'ed to pri`;sec ?;^.^e ' think it }^"s':^^€t ba.-^ he1^3Q^6l for the jury, •a n
to know why.
^®el^^^ffdta Caur^t' fafi e ^^o, 3 ^..^P 9
itas ^, at s ignificant to th@s case - -.^^ "^?URs ; ?^^^^ ^f t, .^ re ^;;^^r. v ^%
and ob-^-u^ly ^::F"yy that i^r^r. ^ eg:.: ^ w^ ,Je omiy c*n",^ through h^s tesfirnony,
should ^^ choose to l ^ ^ r,va" cwo`w` ^`°at. But ^^ ^ can^=^^^^^. But, n. s^^. the "^ ^ bs ^
address tphat, again, I guess, at -he Lh , ^I h,f.^ skiUl^:-^ c hoos.^ to stjfy or not;.
,05) 'Ttl . at°7-11
(s46) Appelaans^ also rAes an c-,)f,^h,&.-1ge opan^^ ^^ ^^^^errients,
(1,147) "°[MR. CR^^^ER:] That's pretty much .,H the evidence i,,-, going to show in
this ^^ss. lV#entot did not fir charges. .aem-,e-y dPCus r'so", fi^e 6"a^^g as, bu, Westerville did.
jjG;4$) o"K's u; d6 °ar if at any ip "Imt tirn f, ^.;,-4^body n7a^,de any efforts to and,
Iocafe Carlos Topete:
i149) "Thank You
"MR. TAPOGS^4 Your 1-lonor, may we approa.;:^h fors second?
che4^ the ---.,enct^jjESl) (Ther^^^^on, s.ti:- aftor"e.,Fs a..^ the b9yiirt ,,ept,-ter ap p^
outside the hearing of 't4^e J^;:;^ and ^h c-,, ^^^low,ne were had:)
;^Ti52) "MIR. ^^^^C'E";;: ;He sb>hed iout wh;: ^^^ th eq f1ed charges or not. The
relevance of that ® ...
(1153) FFKIRa CF;^^ERs We€=, i ass^.r;"<e ti.a d...:Fendant can testify, a€^ that stuff is ir•
the video.
^^^SQ "IVIR piay ^ .. ahaa^
fqy55) "MR. C.R"AMER° We'4l see that pe ,. it's afl an the videos.
(156) "THE ^^ ^UR^^e^, Is he going 'tc, nest :V?
(157) "MR. CPA8'^^ER. Ail of that was in the ';s%ideL.4,
(7158) "sThat`s :n the :^deos provided to nne .:-h^^^^gh ;;iscovery.
^, F^ ^^, e 13 ^L^s, ^ 03 Gi. .,` .. DelaVar:^ County , 10
.59^ "THE COJRT. ds it?.. d
^.i ^^", "MR. GRAMiaF-.,, it°s up :o rne 1.vhetffier or not h,,a testiries.
"`PHE (',Oi.,iRT; ^11 they ^.tij..i`t sr ^ow t, at part, then he'i€ s^aveto tesdafye
fl-IM) "MR. CRAMBR:, He wo:'t Intave to, ta:. jw^ caan jus^ take ir an^ say the.t
wasn°t proven.
(4j.j63) "THE COURT. No,
(1764) "MR. TA^^CS, 1Ahe agher cases, `)er ^^- not they filed charges or not,
there`s a lot that goes into those. i^on", want toget into that, as far as whether they
were paid ef° not, pt°^ just aio.,ng the sarne l z%^,se
(TJ,65) "THE COURT: So ws-iatu.re y^.,w esk,n fer?
,^jT66) "MR. TA^^CS.. I'r^ ^ ^^ ^'ng _^°.at tu b5:^ stricken and we talked about that,
whether charges are f5ied or not.
%`F^6a) "MR . C_>ME^-.. i t1hur:k, t;^^^'^^ direcV re:evaint t(.,,, other law enfcircement
the ^^ F:^agencies v^siio looked at^^ ^r^ ,fyarrce.^n l
^^^: rna _ ..,,, ^ a..A i ^t ^ .,e-y an y ^3^ense.
j;68) "THE COURT:. VVe djn z. Knovr<° wh^It- th. ;r ^aM.z is.
fS69} °Tii strike the s::atemen:`.
1%7G) "(Thereupon, ^h^e si^ebarwes conciaded)
(%71) "THE GOUMT, i==vks: ^whetn;er oth ,^ law 9nf-orcement- agencies filed
charges or riot is irrelevant these a;^^ .3c :`^^'ir1gs. ^e,,-^;sions that went ir"itoare
irrel^^atit to this case. Strike that and disE°egard.'0
(^^^) Tr. et41w44.
f%73) Appeilant did not testefyat ¢rial> follo',wing, the opening of triai, after
openina, staterrena,sD Appei;ant did not proffer any in the trial ceurt. Fwrtherp
° E3elawarr- County, Case No. 13 CAA 08 :^06 11
Appellant did not renew his abq,;ctiorn t;°_e ruHing oin the rsecordo Appel;aa t did not
attempt to introduce &i^ t,,,,--,st7rno1riy at and did not F^therwi; -a move 'Tp ^ns^e trial c^F' , t to
admit the same into evi^.^ence. Accor flnggy, v o firfd' Appeilamt did' not preserve the
argument be€"ore th^ tnal cou,t, P,'s^^ ^as vas7ied but p^aiin error on a;^paea9e^f
('V,74) an order to pre=.vaiE <..`ndar a, _^la em-:,r ^^ ^^yss$sF appeliai,^ bp-ars the burden
of da-morstrefinw; that the ou.,^onle of t0al d^>ar^^^^ ^^ould hVve been different btjt for
the error. Long_. Nlotelce- of p€air, error ti^,, be :,^^ with the utn~A^-)st caLition, under
^xcep?Sot"'F4. c^^^ ir"^ .st^^nce_ and to ; 'e^var9t . rrcn;fest railso"arr€^ge of 9^upstice." 18', at
paragrap,h three of the syloabus. ^V'Je Arpa°3eli,<'-t 1- not met ^^hat tf,lrden,
^^^^^ Furthermore, we fiY-id the ' a^ ^^^u.rl`s d,1 .:sion tc, -:sxc^ude test-rnony as to
the fact charges were not file=^ in, the ot^ Ner y°vo as being irrelevant does not
constibute. arE abuse of discr^t',on. '
:iecor3d ; n!^ tN: 'i' qd errors are o'..i^errE%i+'.<d,
iV.
(Iff77) In the final asr,igr.ment e^°:^r, !-",:,,9pe$lv^nt argu ..^ his cor^.s€ct9on is not
supported by the sufficiency of llhe ev'4Jai°.c-a, Plnd t.ie tr^^^ co.;,:;rt en°wd in denying his
Criminal P.ule 29 ^-notion tE3r
= ' .'^ iit f the ^(T,78) ^a^^r '"t^^irr^ii^i^.^ ^ ^:^ .^^ ^^.. ^ ^,; r^ t^o.^, ^hi ^ RU^^s osr Crii`n:nal Proo-dure, a
deterl& .. ;ntkt^^^ tri a i#.:^^^mer:t of a,; L" ,3f > a ac. ^^.. h€m, `ait the evidence
is iz sufficeni t^ ^^sm^n a ^C ^^ - !Vh the'^` a co.>. vpctic'm ... siported bv saaffinierst
evidei'^ce, F^ ^ que-stion ot ^av< tW. Couri ,'evY.^ws d-- novo. St^^ ,. , v. Thos^ pkins; 78 Ohio
1 W^°° d6 F ad 9°'!p-p^'..;^°^+^.fi^^.,sf°^^€ a
1 1, a.^.°° ^°•^^' . ^a^ ^^ ^: ,;^^.^y in ^ ^ ^^ ^.. ^yit: ^-^:.^^^ve i', App r-^flantdoes not 9ference to aII; . t'> rr^l :"es:.M e r r^" to HH-:".R e9^id"ence of his
offer o6 me^a^. NE-r atte:^-V^d ::0 riroduce
the e^.®i& ce '{hro€^gh, p_.of^-er r
Delaware CotintyP Case No. 13 CAA 08 12
St.3d 380, 386, 678 KE2d 541 (199 r`e v. st, 9th Dist. ^^,,Io. 04CA008654,
2005-•0taio-990a 133. ",^^e must d'eter'rn- -hether, , viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, it ^o,.,jld <<ava co:^^^^^nce^^s" 7iie 2-^^^erage finder of fact of
Appelsani'.^ qu^^^ beyond re^sc;nable ".. ^^wht. Srv^^e v: J^nk.3, Ohio St..3d 259, 574
KEM 4`2, par^^rwpt" two of thce:,; (=991)
(1q,7,91 Thus, vmEep review::^^. a T ^^^^irn, an appeilate
cou,f must construe the v;.vaden xe Ee na y At ~^os^ t'av.frabk- to .; ^Dra^^^cufitor°. 5^^^o v.
HA 75 St.3d 100-5 20115, 6r:^ N.E I 1068 0996ysg State .. Grant, 67 Ohio St3d
465^ 477, 620 KE2d 50 (1993',, A rey^ ew1;rug ct,,urt v,,4H not overturn a conviction on a
suff3cler^-f'-Of-.thlp°e`^^d-,^nce _.d^ --.aso",s"'saW^e minds couEd rlot reach the
Cor&clusion that the tr4p-r of ac` dfld. v, x^efts. 92 01^^Jo St.Id 146, 162, 749
KEe2d r°6 (20011)4 St,fev. Tre:- h, 90'..)hir`, St xdi 460, 484, `^^, N,E,^^ 749 (,2001).
(1,80) Here, Atopelsamit was of 'orgery; in. violation of RL.
291, 3.3 1 (, A:)^^;^ ^i c h re a d s,
^,81) "(A) No persory, to or kn..:^,iiji7 g ""!hat the person ws
facilitatinc, a f; auds do any of t°^ ^ fc Ow t 9g:
a,(:) Utter, or ros^,i;ss w^^.,r. p:<rpoa^^Y to L:le^^, ^.r3';= writing that the person" d
knows '^ ^ have been roa ged,e^
^^^^^^ Upon ^.^,Jev., of the, «LL4 9d- e s^: ted supra ^nd const^°uing the evidence
6n a laght :hnost f.nvorable to the ^,;ve tF'er^ is a^^^^^^^^ evs,dence upon which
^ r^3 ^id o for `y b M:`^d a ;'°aaonu^bae doubt.the ju,`c;,"u9a^^:^ have .
D e 9a wa re C o u n=yp C a se N o ^ 13 0 8 a0 6a' 13
(%85) Appek^^^t was a1s.^onvic .3d of fl°5eft, sn violation of R.Cl 2913.02(A)(3),
which reads,
{%1^6} °`(A) No person, wi ^::. ^^rpF e .::^ de-;:rsve tt°^^ owsier of property or services,
shaia k^€o^^F7^;^g^y ^:^btai^ ^ or ^;xert : i#h;"T the ;^rope^y cir se^-, ^^^^ in any of the
foa^^^^ne, -,"Veys:
^-^q ^zr4x^^r
(IFc'^",,3) asf "^ Fiy de^^^^iondaa
s^gFdn„ vsewNn^ the :WK13: i a 'ig4vf'^ most f:^^omnble to the State, we f^,nd
$h:;b e, is a.inpse evidence upon th'.. u- Y` co:^^ ^ h^a`+%e foun<?; r^ppe'gani gul^^y oftheft
beyond ::^ ,-,asorab1^ doubt.
The ^,o":,^i^i a of v''e ^Dr 3
f°" ^I ^^^^^^E^:^^^:`s ^;^^^^ ^^^^t^^ ^ ,,, ^,^[a ^^.^.. .^ :.In^ Co;.r^ of Common Pleas is
affirrried.
BY. Hoffman, P.111.
Farmer, ',, and
Wise, J. -.cur
WHI_L ;AMS. 01^^
^^^^
He.,^P,I LA G FARMER
!r ' . -^p 3'a ,9 s°,^ .
/
^N THE ^OUR'4` OFAF,PEAL.>i FOR D^LX^,AkAR^ COUN°rv., OHg^^ ^^^"1H APP °LLATE DiS^^^: RlCT
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff-Appelree
-vs-
FRANK R-E-GAN
JU^^GME^^IT ENTRY
Case No+. 13 CAA 08 0067
For the reasons stated in our w °o^7^^panying Opinion, Appellianf's conviction in
y Court of Co M^z Cost:,^^+toAppel1anf.the Delawar^ ^^^^t
k^^'+^: ^^^"^b ^ W,.^^ G@
et 11
Ho[,^ G . F`_^RMER
XG..^ ^f. _ '^ ; ^---^' `^^^' f ,•^^%.y," ^._. _..^ _...._^..
j Ca:" ^$
r
`°^^ >
^
O.iI's