Skip to content

State v. Montgomery, 1996 WL 141675 (Ct. App. Ohio 1996)

Case (cite)
State v. Montgomery, 1996 WL 141675 (Ct. App. Ohio 1996)
Year
1996
State
Ohio
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Correct to Admit
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
John M. Miller
Summary of reasons for ruling
On appeal, the court overruled defendant's five assignments of error and affirmed the judgment of conviction. In his first assignment of error, defendant argued that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress a shotgun shell found in the kitchen of his parent's home. The court found from the totality of the circumstances that the State had proved by clear and convincing evidence that defendant's father, with whom he lived, consented to police officers entering the living room and exiting the home through the back door and that his consent was voluntary. The court then held that the trial court had not violated Ohio R. Evid. 703 by admitting in evidence an expert's testimony regarding the shell. The court also ruled that the prosecutor's remarks about an absent witness constituted fair comment and did not violate Ohio R. Crim. P. 16(C)(3).
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Ohio R. Evid. 703
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Miller
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
None
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or PCAST report (PCAST)
N/A
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
NA
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
N/A
Ruling on qualifications of expert
N
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
N
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
N
Ruling on 702(c) – the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes