Opinion ID: 7089211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Readmission of Guilt-Phase Evidence

Text: {¶ 247} In his 12th proposition of law, Tench argues that the trial court erred by permitting the state to readmit in the penalty phase all the evidence that had been submitted to the jury in the guilt phase with the exception of four exhibits involving drugs and one involving allegedly stolen identification documents, all of which the state withdrew. 8 Defense counsel did not object to the readmission; indeed, during a status conference before the penalty phase, counsel conceded that under the case law, most of the trial evidence can be presented at the penalty phase. {¶ 248} Because the defense did not object, we review this issue under the plain-error standard. Tench's specific complaints in this proposition relate to  gruesome photographs and other-acts evidence. As to the photographs, we have repeatedly held that evidence depicting the nature and circumstances of the offense, including allegedly gruesome photographs, is relevant to, and may be  considered in, the penalty phase. See State v. Stumpf , 32 Ohio St.3d 95 , 512 N.E.2d 598 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Hill , 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 201, 661 N.E.2d 1068 (1996) ; State v. Fears , 86 Ohio St.3d 329 , 345, 715 N.E.2d 136 (1999), citing State v. DePew , 38 Ohio St.3d 275 , 282-283, 528 N.E.2d 542 (1988). The other-acts evidence was improperly admitted in the guilt phase, but as we noted above, our independent review will eliminate any carryover effect. Davie , 80 Ohio St.3d at 322 , 686 N.E.2d 245 . Tench's 12th proposition of law is therefore overruled.