Smith, Petitioner
V.
Thompson, Respondent
Case Number: OH 5647-32
Facts:
This appeal arises out of a post-judgment ruling by the trial court on the issue of whether Mr. John Smith stole Ms. Agnes Thompson’s mail in order to commit identity fraud. The facts which give rise to this matter are as follows: Agnes Thompson, 74 year old, accused John Smith of stealing her mail and opening several accounts using her personal information and social security number. Mr. Smith allegedly stole Ms. Thompson’s mail in order to commit identity fraud; subsequently, the police arrested Mr. Smith was arrested in June of 2015. Later, the Federal District Court in Toledo tried Mr. Smith in August of 2015. Mr. Smith pleads not guilty. At trial, Ms. Thompson testified that she heard someone tampering with her mailbox and when she went to look at the situation she saw Mr. Smith running to his house with mail in his hands. Two days later, Ms. Thompson realized that money
…show more content…
Young (internet/ WestLaw: 471846, 2002) further support that the admission of previous convictions that hold prejudice against a party in the case is inadmissible and should not be allowed into testimony. In State v. Young, Devon Young was convicted of felonious assault with weapons specification. The Court of appeals deemed that the admission of Mr. Young’s “prior felony conviction for attempted murder was unduly prejudicial.” The Law Review “Evidence Rule 806 and the Problem of Impeaching the Nontestifying Declarant” 56 Ohio St. L.J. 495 states that the prejudice that arises from the admission of previous crimes into court runs a “significant risk that the jury will not use the evidence of convictions solely to evaluate the defendant’s credibility, but also will use it as evidence of guilt or moral desert.” The same basis applies to Mr. Smith’s case, the admission of Mr. Smith’s online fraud conviction was unduly prejudicial therefore denying Mr. Smith to a fair, accurate