Ohio R. Evid. 410

As amended through March 13, 2024

Rule 410 - Inadmissibility of Pleas, Offers of Pleas, and Related Statements

(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this rule, evidence of the following is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the defendant who made the plea or who was a participant personally or through counsel in the plea discussions:

(1) a plea of guilty that later was withdrawn;

(2) a plea of no contest or the equivalent plea from another jurisdiction;

(3) a plea of guilty in a violations bureau;

(4) any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent procedure from another jurisdiction regarding the foregoing pleas;

(5) any statement made in the course of plea discussions in which counsel for the prosecuting authority or for the defendant was a participant and that do not result in a plea of guilty or that result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn.

(B) A statement otherwise inadmissible under this rule is admissible in either of the following:

(1) any proceeding in which another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement should, in fairness, be considered contemporaneously with it;

(2) a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on the record, and in the presence of counsel.

Ohio. R. Evid. 410

Effective:7/1/1980; amended effective 7/1/1991.

Staff Note (July 1, 1991 Amendment)

Rule 410 Inadmissibility of Pleas, Offers of Pleas, and Related Statements

At the time Evid. R. 410 became effective in July 1980, there was "no substantive variation between the Ohio rule and the Federal Rule." Ohio Staff Note (1980). The term "no contest" had replaced the phrase "nolo contendere" used in the federal rule and the phrases "or the equivalent plea from another jurisdiction" and "or a plea of guilty in a violations bureau" had been added to the Ohio rule.

The federal rule, however, was thereafter amended. Several federal cases had read the federal rule broadly to cover some statements made during "plea bargain" discussions between defendants and law enforcement officers. See United States v. Harman, 544 F. 2d 791, 795-799 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Brooks, 536 F. 2d 1137, 1138-39 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. Smith, 525 F. 2d 1017, 1020-22 (10th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, the federal drafters became concerned "that an otherwise voluntary admission to law enforcement officials [might be] rendered inadmissible merely because it was made in the hope of obtaining leniency by a plea." Fed. R. Evid. 410, Advisory Committee Note (1980). Federal Rule 410 now specifies that only plea discussions with the "attorney for the prosecuting authority" are covered by the rule.

The amendment incorporates the same limitation into the Ohio rule. It is intended to clarify an area of ambiguity. The amended rule is designed to protect plea bargaining statements involving attorneys in order to promote the disposition of criminal cases by compromise. Statements made by an accused to the police are not covered by this rationale. Improper inducements by the police may be challenged under the constitutional standards governing the voluntariness of confessions, but may not be excluded under this rule.

Unlike the federal rule, the amendment specifically covers plea bargaining statements made by defense counsel. Such statements are excluded from evidence when made either to the prosecutor or the police.

Two additional changes are effected by the amendment. First, the amendment recognizes an exception in addition to the exception for perjury and false statement prosecutions. This exception applies in "any proceeding in which another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement should, in fairness, be considered contemporaneously with it." This provision is a restatement of the "rule of completeness" found in Evid. R. 106.

Second, the amendment specifically excludes "any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent procedure from another jurisdiction." This provision was added for clarification; the same result would have been reached under the old rule.