State v. Pedreira

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Pedreira

522 N.E.2d 573, 36 Ohio St. 3d 614, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 123

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 4, 1988

DocketNo. 88-437

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 522 N.E.2d 573 (State v. Pedreira) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Pedreira, 522 N.E.2d 573, 36 Ohio St. 3d 614, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 123 (Ohio 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I must respectfully but vigorously dissent from the majority’s refusal to grant review in this case. Appellant, Abilio Pedreira, was convicted of murder in part on evidence presented by way of statements made by the victim, his wife, Doris, prior to her death. Evidence to show impairment of the victim’s mental faculties was offered by way of impeachment. The victim had a plethora of problems that would demonstrate mental, as opposed to emotional, instability. This evidence was not admitted at trial.

In a split decision, the court of appeals affirmed, stating that the evidence should have been admitted, but declined to reverse on the theory that appellant had failed to conform to App. R. 9(B) by not furnishing the totality of the transcript.

I certainly agree with Judge Pryatel’s dissent in that the burden should be on the state, not the appellant, to furnish other portions of the transcript which might belie prejudicial error. I perceive manifest injustice of constitutional magnitude in this case.

H. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I must respectfully but vigorously dissent from the majority’s refusal to grant review in this case. Appellant, Abilio Pedreira, was convicted of murder in part on evidence presented by way of statements made by the victim, his wife, Doris, prior to her death. Evidence to show impairment of the victim’s mental faculties was offered by way of impeachment. The victim had a plethora of problems that would demonstrate mental, as opposed to emotional, instability. This evidence was not admitted at trial.

In a split decision, the court of appeals affirmed, stating that the evidence should have been admitted, but declined to reverse on the theory that appellant had failed to conform to App. R. 9(B) by not furnishing the totality of the transcript.

I certainly agree with Judge Pryatel’s dissent in that the burden should be on the state, not the appellant, to furnish other portions of the transcript which might belie prejudicial error. I perceive manifest injustice of constitutional magnitude in this case.

H. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 N.E.2d 573, 36 Ohio St. 3d 614, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pedreira-ohio-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack