NEED PRIOR TO DISCLOSING THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AND/OR DID NOT PROVIDE THE APPELLANT WITH THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION [sic] WITNESSES IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 2 AND 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR. GIBBONS BY REFUSING TO DISCLOSE EVIDENCE MATERIAL AND RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF THE VICTIM AS THE FIRST AGGRESSOR WHERE THE APPELLANT HAD RAISED THE DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, ANDFOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III THE JURY'S VERDICTS ARE AGAINST THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE APPELLANT HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RETREAT, WAS NOT THE AGGRESSOR AND HAD AN HONEST BELIEF THAT HE WAS IN DANGER OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM AND/OR DEATH AND THAT HIS ONLY MEANS OF ESCAPE WAS TO UTILIZE A POCKET KNIFE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV THE JURY VERDICT FINDING MR. GIBBONS GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MURDER AGAINST A VICTIM WHO RECEIVED MINOR INJURIES IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE JURY'S FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT LACKED A SPECIFIC INTENT TO PURPOSELY CAUSE THE DEATH OF A SECOND VICTIM WHO DIED AND THE JURY'S SPECIFIC REQUEST THAT IT BE PERMITTED TO CONSIDER THE LESSER OFFENSE OF FELONIOUS ASSAULT INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTED MURDER.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V THE TRIAL COURT'S IMPOSITION OF MAXIMUM SENTENCES IS CONTRARY TO LAW WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY SERVED A PRISON TERM AND THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT MAKE FINDINGS THAT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT EITHER COMMITTED THE WORST FORMS OF THE OFFENSES OR POSED THE GREATEST LIKELIHOOD OF COMMITTING FUTURE CRIMES IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2929.14; R.C.2929.15 AND R.C. 2929.19.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI THE TRIAL COURT'S IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IS CONTRARY TO LAW WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT MAKE FINDINGS THAT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM FUTURE CRIME OR TO PUNISH THE APPELLANT, THAT THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE APPELLANT'S CONDUCT AND THE DANGER POSED TO THE PUBLIC, OR THAT THE HARM CAUSED BY MULTIPLE OFFENSES WAS SO GREAT OR UNUSUAL THAT NO SINGLE PRISON TERM FOR EITHER OF THE OFFENSES HAD ADEQUATELY REFLECTED THE SERIOUSNESS OF APPELLANT'S CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2929.14.
I In his first assignment of error, appellant contends that he was denied due process, equal protection and a fair trial when the State used grand jury testimony to impeach and/or refresh the memory of defense witnesses, without a showing of particularized need and/or without providing the defense with the grand jury testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The State used grand jury testimony in regards to the cross-examination of two witnesses presented by the defense. During the trial, defense counsel objected at the end of the State's cross-examination of the first