State v. Shaw, Montgomery

In State v. Shaw, Montgomery App. No. 21880, 2008 Ohio 1317, the Second Appellate District faced a similar situation to the case at bar. Shaw was indicted for 15 counts of rape and ten counts of sexual battery relating to the sexual abuse of three of his minor daughters. Id. at P3. At trial, Shaw's three other, older daughters testified about the sexual abuse they endured, which was not the subject matter of the pending case. Id. at P4. Following trial, Shaw was only found guilty of three counts of rape and two counts of sexual battery. Id. at P6. In reviewing the admission of the "other acts" testimony from Shaw's three older daughters, the Second District noted the prosecution's cursory explanation for the testimony. "The prosecutor merely stated that she needed to talk to the witnesses 'about what happened during these times so I can move on to what the next incident will be. There are so many incidents.'" The Second District rejected the state's proffered reason stating, "this cursory explanation fails to establish any of the exceptions under Evid.R. 404(B)." Id. at P12. "The courts in Ohio have long recognized that evidence of other crimes, wrongs or bad acts carries potential for the must virulent kind of prejudice for the accused." Id. at P13. "That is even more true sic in a case such as this where the other acts involve conduct similar or identical to the offense charged. In cases where evidence has been admitted for a very limited purpose and that evidence tends to show that Defendant has committed other criminal acts, the jury should be instructed that such evidence must not be considered by them as proof that defendant committed the crime charged." Id.