Great find! It appears under rules of evidence 404 (b) that RG's testimony will be allowed in at trial and not as an aggravator at penalty phase. Which is when I thought it would only be allowed.Thanks for this. Appears I was wrong.
Bravo, I'm not sure that I've seen the judges response to the latest filing though allowing such in the wonderful PDF's that MamaP has given us. The prosecution has done a great job having the strongest witnesses first (Josh) and last (RG/if so during CIC)
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=131596&d=1521276830
2/17 Judge order snippets
Thereafter, the State provides in its brief "facts" it intends to introduce at trial in an effort to provide proof of the commonality of the actions of the Defendant in this case and in the 1990 conviction. At this point in time, the Court cannot say with any degree of certainty the State has in fact established commonality because testimony regarding the Defendant's alleged actions in this case has not yet been placed into evidence. To rule on the admissibility of the prior conviction without regard to the admissibility of the alleged conduct of the Defendant in this case would be premature and potentially prejudicial. The Court therefore is reserving ruling on the Defendant's Motion in Limine until after the Defense has rested its case. If the Court is satisfied that the State has met its burden as set forth in the McAdory case, the victim of the prior offense shall be allowed to testify as to the actions of the Defendant which led to his previous conviction. IT IS SO ORDER
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=131597&d=1521276850
March 9[SUP]th[/SUP] filing by Haselman/Prosecutor in response to judge order snippets
While the Court has previously held its final determination on Defendant's Motion No. 62 in abeyance pending the laying of an adequate foundation, as the Court has at least twice mentioned during the jury selection process that Ms G's testimony may be permitted during "rebuttal", the State is compelled to file this Additional Memorandum as Ohio law clearly and unequivocally indicates that proper Evidence Rule 404(B) evidence is to be admitted in the State's case-in-chief. ...
The State will not recount the similarity of the factual circumstances between what 2 happened between Ms. G and Defendant back in 1990 and the expected evidence in the case at bar. In that regard, the State would simply refer the Court to the State's prior filings regarding the matter. However, the State is merely filing this Additional Memorandum to make it clear that it is well-established law, as recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court and the Sixth District Court of Appeals, that Evidence Rule 404(B) evidence showing "proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, [or] identity" is admissible in the State's casein-chief, and is not limited to rebuttal...
Moreover, while the State believes that the case law cited in Section A clearly calls for the State's proposed Evidence Rule 404(B) evidence to be admitted during the State's case-inchief, the State would likewise submit that limiting such evidence to rebuttal makes no sense when looking at what the State must prove in its case-in-chief, and the issues which are properly raised on rebuttal….
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and as set forth in the State's Response to Defendant's Motion #62, it is clear that (1) the factual circumstances surrounding the 1990 incident involving Ms. G are admissible under the terms of Evidence Rule 404(B); and (2) that such evidence is admissible during the State's case-in-chief.