From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Kimbrough

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake County
Jul 9, 1999
No. 97-L-274 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 9, 1999)

Opinion

No. 97-L-274.

July 9, 1999.

Judgment affirmed. O'Neill, J., concurs in judgment only. See Opinion and Judgment Entry. [CHRISTLEY] (FORD) (O'NEILL)


CRIMINAL LAW/EVIDENCE:

Pursuant to Evid.R. 613, extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements may only be admitted to assist the jury in assessing a witness' credibility at trial. Such inconsistent statements may not be admitted as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, unless the statement falls within another recognized hearsay exception, the trial court must give the jury a limiting instruction in this regard.


Summaries of

State v. Kimbrough

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake County
Jul 9, 1999
No. 97-L-274 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 9, 1999)
Case details for

State v. Kimbrough

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES H. KIMBROUGH…

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake County

Date published: Jul 9, 1999

Citations

No. 97-L-274 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 9, 1999)

Citing Cases

Shull v. Itani

Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(a). In this case, the report was not given under oath and, thus, was not admissible as…

State v. Wolff

The requirement that the statement occur prior to the motive "is based on the notion that an untruthful story…