Court Opinion

ID: 9802348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 09:04:56.578921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:07.402151
License: Public Domain

Belfance, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
{¶ 37} I concur. I write separately to emphasize that I do not condone the conduct of the prosecutor in failing to disclose the information concerning the alleged bribe to defense counsel and eliciting this testimony from the witness. However, I agree that in light of the specific facts presented and our standard of review, the trial court’s failure to sua sponte declare a mistrial does not rise to the level of plain error. The alleged bribe was not made by Secessions or a member of Secessions’s family, and, therefore, Secessions was not directly connected to the bribe. Accordingly, I concur.
*753Carr, Judge, concurring in judgment only.
{¶ 38} I join in Judge Belfance’s concerns in her separate opinion. I concur separately on the basis that I would analyze the discovery dispute differently than the majority. First, the prosecutor had a mandatory duty to disclose the alleged bribery statement. Second, Secessions was not prejudiced because the testimony was stricken by the trial court and the jury was instructed to disregard it.