Source: https://ads1.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=CA2017-12-172%20&s=OH&d=127456
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:46:23+00:00

Document:
tablets. Parker's motive was to collect insurance proceeds.
raising five assignments of error.
of the aggravated arson counts as the evidence against him was entirely circumstantial.
Tucker further argues that his convictions were against the weight of the evidence.
conviction can be supported as a matter of law. State v. Everitt, 12th Dist. Warren No.
reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
ordered. State v. Bradbury, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-111, 2016-Ohio-5091, ¶ 17.
No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19.
framed family photographs, decorative objects and mementos, and important documents.
On December 27, 2015, Parker and Bertha went to Las Vegas on a planned vacation.
for transporting Tucker with gas money and oxycodone.
children's teenaged babysitter. Basinger met Tucker at a CVS Pharmacy in Richmond.
children and the babysitter and she, Tucker, and Brooks drove to the east side of Hamilton.
vehicle, he was breathing heavily, carrying the gym bag, a gas can, and a padlock.
that her phone was stationary between 12:41 a.m. and 12:52 a.m.
Police Department was dispatched to 1310 Pater Avenue in reference to an intrusion alarm.
detectives believed that it had been broken off with a pry tool.
and Wolterman fell through to the basement and he perished from the effects of the fire.
involvement and claimed that he was in Richmond when the fire occurred.
friends and family. Tucker also communicated via Facebook messenger.
lot located across from the Cove Motel in Hamilton.
by Parker to Stacy's cellular phone.
p.m. The call lasted 27 seconds.
that read, "Baby Doll. Done with the job. Got to get some rest and call you tomorrow."
phone on December 29, 2015 at 11:22 a.m.
across the street from the Cove Motel.
and his nephew had set for "insurance reasons."
Basinger had transported him to the area of Pater Avenue where he briefly left the vehicle.
midnight on Allstatter Avenue where he purchased 30 oxycodone tablets from her and left.
started. Basinger testified that Tucker was carrying a gas can upon returning to the vehicle.
fire was committed there. The jury is in a better position than this court to weigh credibility.
dispositive of the issues of the sufficiency of the evidence. Jones, 2013-Ohio-150 at ¶ 19.
This court overrules Tucker's first assignment of error.
v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 164 (1990).
minimizes the possibility of incongruous results in successive trials before different juries.
Ohio St.3d 71, 88-89 (1990).
sever.'" Schiebel at 89, quoting United States v. Castro, 887 F.2d 988, 996 (9th Cir.1989).
admissible if a defendant were tried alone is admitted against a codefendant.'" State v.
merely because they have a better chance of acquittal in separate trials." Zafiro at 540.
charges could have erroneously and prejudicially implicated him in the conspiracy.
other codefendant who was available to accomplish the task.
crime as alleged against each defendant is simple and distinct." State v. Wyche, 10th Dist.
defendants." Id., citing State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170, 175 (1980).
relevant and admissible against Tucker to establish the conspiracy.
not guilty in a stand-alone trial that excluded this testimony.
IT ALLOWED THE STATE TO INTRODUCE DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE.
used a pry tool to break into the basement of Parker's home.
home on December 27, 2015, helping Parker and Bertha prepare for their Las Vegas trip.
over the eyelet, which would then allow a padlock to secure the door, was missing.
hasp lock appears similar, if not identical, to the original base on the cellar door.
used the pry bar to quickly break the lock, which was recorded on video.
tool, such as a pry tool.
and eyelet would be substantially similar to the replacement hardware.
reasonable assumption based upon the facts known to the police.
record. This court overrules Tucker's third assignment of error.
message she received from Tucker.
meant. The court again excluded the testimony based on its speculative nature.
personal knowledge. Accordingly, her opinion would not meet the requirements of Evid.R.
701.1 This court overrules Tucker's fourth assignment of error.
1. Moreover, this court notes that Linda Rose's anticipated testimony that Tucker was referring to a roofing job would be inconsistent with Tucker's testimony that the "job" he ostensibly completed was buying oxycodone tablets from Melissa Jones to sell in Hamilton.
comment. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d at 75.
were proceeding with the arson plan.
holding a five-minute moment of silence during closing argument.
035, 2005-Ohio-1924, ¶ 37, citing State v. Taylor, 73 Ohio App.3d 827, 831 (4th Dist.1991).
grounds for reversal if it results in prejudice to the defendant. Id., citing Armleder v.
Lieberman, 33 Ohio St. 77 (1877).
simulate a bruise and tried to see it in a darkened room); State v. Hubbard, 8th Dist.
could observe from 50 feet away).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.