State v. Mulkey

27 Citing cases

  1. State v. Young

    Case No. 96-BA-34 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2000)   Cited 1 times

    Now pending before this Court are two motions; a Motion to Certify a Conflict Judgment filed by Appellant on October 1, 1999 and Appellant's Application for Reconsideration filed the same day. The State of Ohio has answered each pleading and Appellant has also filed a further response. In his Motion to Certify, Appellant asserts that this Court's judgment conflicts with the decision announced in State v. Mulkey (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 773 [ 98 Ohio App.3d 773]. In Mulkey, the Tenth District Court of Appeals identified and set out certain factors to consider in determining whether a homicide was committed with prior calculation:

  2. Harris v. Wainwright

    1:21-cv-0860 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2023)

    {¶51} To satisfy the first prong of Evid.R. 701, the opinion of the lay witness must be “‘one that a rational person would form on the basis of the observed facts.'” State v. Mulkey, 98 Ohio App.3d 773, 784, 649 N.E.2d 897 (10th Dist. 1994), quoting Lee v. Baldwin, 35 Ohio App.3d 47, 49, 519 N.E.2d 662 (1st Dist. 1987). And where a law enforcement officer “testified as a lay witness to opinions based on his experience as a police officer, his previous investigations, and his perception of evidence at issue,” this first prong is satisfied.

  3. Vore v. Warden, Richland Corr. Inst.

    Case No. 1:13-cv-800 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2014)

    The Bond court emphasized that Ohio law permits lay witness opinion if the opinion is "one that a rational person would form on the basis of the observed facts." Id. at ¶ 10, citing Ohio R. Evid. 701 and State v. Mulkey, 98 Ohio App. 3d 773 (1994).

  4. Williams v. Haviland

    Case No. 1:05CV1014 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Indeed, each case involved an isolated incident between strangers that led to murder. See State v. Reed, 65 Ohio St. 2d 117 (1981) (defendant shot police officer after being pulled over); State v. Mulkey, 98 Ohio App. 3d 773 (10th App. Dist. 1994) (defendant stabbed victim during chance encounter); State v. Davis, 8 Ohio App. 3d 205 (8th App. Dist. 1982) (defendant shot victim during altercation at bar); State v. Jenkins, 48 Ohio App. 2d 99 (8th App. Dist. 1976) (defendant shot victim during chance encounter). The critical difference in the instant case is that the encounter between Williams and Chandler was not isolated.

  5. State v. Campbell

    90 Ohio St. 3d 320 (Ohio 2000)   Cited 531 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the oral delivery of jury instructions in open court is a critical stage of trial at which defendant has a right to be present, defendant does not have a right to be present at an in-chambers discussion regarding the trial court's response to a jury question, which was then answered by a note and not in open court

    Nor was this the sort of brief, explosive situation in which courts usually find evidence of prior calculation and design to be insufficient. See, e.g., State v. Reed (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 117, 19 O.O.3d 311, 418 N.E.2d 1359; State v. Mulkey (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 773, 649 N.E.2d 897; State v. Davis (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 205, 8 OBR 276, 456 N.E.2d 1256. Dials did not frighten or provoke Campbell.

  6. State v. Taylor

    78 Ohio St. 3d 15 (Ohio 1997)   Cited 486 times
    Finding that where the defendant brought a gun to the scene and had a strained relationship with the victim, two or three minutes from the time of an initial argument to the time of the killing is sufficient to establish prior calculation

    At other times, Ohio courts (including this court) have declined to uphold findings of "prior calculation and design" in explosive, short-duration situations. See, e.g., State v. Reed (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 117, 19 O.O.3d 311, 418 N.E.2d 1359 (after a botched theft, accused shot pursuing civilian and police officer); State v. Mulkey (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 773, 649 N.E.2d 897 (street-gang attack on victim); State v. Davis (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 205, 8 OBR 276, 456 N.E.2d 1256 (excluded patron shot bar owner and doorman). Our review of the preceding cited cases convinces us that it is not possible to formulate a bright-line test that emphatically distinguishes between the presence or absence of "prior calculation and design."

  7. State v. Scott

    2024 Ohio 975 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    {¶ 76} Under Evid.R. 701, a witness's opinion is rationally based on their perception when the witness has firsthand knowledge of the subject of his testimony and his opinion is one a rational person would form on the basis of observed facts. State v. Mulkey, 98 Ohio App.3d 773, 649 N.E.2d 897 (10th Dist.1994); State v. Miller, 2015-Ohio-519, 27 N.E.3d 564, ¶ 37 (8th Dist.). Testimony is "helpful" where it aids the trier of fact in understanding the witness's testimony or determining a fact in issue.

  8. State v. Harris

    2020 Ohio 4461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    {¶ 51} To satisfy the first prong of Evid.R. 701, the opinion of the lay witness must be "'one that a rational person would form on the basis of the observed facts.'" State v. Mulkey, 98 Ohio App.3d 773, 784, 649 N.E.2d 897 (10th Dist.1994), quoting Lee v. Baldwin, 35 Ohio App.3d 47, 49, 519 N.E.2d 662 (1st Dist.1987). And where a law enforcement officer "testified as a lay witness to opinions based on his experience as a police officer, his previous investigations, and his perception of evidence at issue," this first prong is satisfied.

  9. State v. Kean

    2019 Ohio 1171 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)

    {¶ 76} The evidence presented at trial, including the location and depth of the fatal stab wound and appellant's own testimony that he intended to swing the knife at Barnett, undermines his claim of mere reckless behavior, and we find the trial court did not err in failing to instruct on involuntary manslaughter. See, e.g., State v. Waller, 2d Dist. No. 2013-CA-26, 2014-Ohio-237, ¶ 2 (trial court did not err in failing to instruct on reckless homicide where, on the evidence presented, no reasonable jury could have found that defendant acted less than knowingly in stabbing his victim in the chest with a knife, penetrating six inches into the victim's chest); State v. Smith, 1st Dist. No. C-080712, 2009-Ohio-6932, ¶ 31 (trial court's failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter not plain error; defendant stabbed victim in heart with knife, and "[n]o jury could have reasonably found that [defendant] had recklessly inflicted these injuries"); State v. Mulkey, 98 Ohio App.3d 773 (10th Dist.1994) (trial court's failure to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter did not rise to the level of plain error given defendant's admission that he stabbed the victim twice, once in the chest and again in the head). {¶ 77} Based on the foregoing, appellant's second assignment of error is not well-taken and is overruled.

  10. State v. Harris

    2017 Ohio 2751 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 19 times

    Id. at 569, 687 N.E.2d 685.{¶ 40} However, at other times, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold findings of "prior calculation and design" in explosive, short-duration situations. See Walker , and State v. Reed , 65 Ohio St.2d 117, 418 N.E.2d 1359 (1981) (after a botched theft, accused shot a pursuing civilian and police officer); see alsoState v. Mulkey , 98 Ohio App.3d 773, 649 N.E.2d 897 (10th Dist.1994) (street-gang attack on victim); State v. Davis , 8 Ohio App.3d 205, 456 N.E.2d 1256 (8th Dist.1982) (excluded patron shot bar owner and doorman). {¶ 41} In this case, the question remains—was this a sudden eruption of events where Harris acted with momentary deliberation?