Opinion ID: 2606343
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Views of women

Text: Over objection, the trial court allowed Nelson to testify as follows: Q. During the time that you knew Jake and lived with Jake did he ever discuss with you women? A. Yes. Q. And how did he react to women? . . . . A. Well, he was very possessive, and a woman had her place and she did what he wanted her to do, but if you're a good friend of Jake's you could do whatever you would like as far as bodywise goes, but he wanted her mind. Q. He what? A. He wanted her mind. Q. What do you mean by that? A. He wanted to manipulate her around, get her to do the things he wanted to do. Defendant characterizes the foregoing as testimony of an irrelevant prior bad act. Although in our view these statements are not other acts for purposes of Rule 404(b), we agree they lacked relevance. There was no basis for offering such testimony other than to show that defendant acted in conformity with a negative view of women and a desire to use them. See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 71 Ohio St.3d 332, 643 N.E.2d 1098, 1105 (1994) (hatred of women a character trait). Because this type of evidence is prohibited by Rule 404(a), and there is no claim that defendant placed his character in issue, the court erred in admitting it.