Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

State v. Whitemore - No. 37471, 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 10065 (Ct. App. July 20, 1978)

Rule:

Ohio R. Crim. P. 16(B)(1)(c) states that a court shall order the prosecuting attorney to permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, available to or within the possession, custody or control of the State, and which are material to the preparation of his defense, are intended for use by the prosecuting attorney as evidence at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant. 

Facts:

The defendant-appellant, Lawrence Whitemore, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County and was charged with Breaking and Entering, Grand Theft, and Possessing Criminal Tools. Gregory Shepherd, a security officer for Honeywell Protection Services, testified for the State and stated that he was dispatched to a drugstore because of an alarm signal from the store. When he arrived at the front of the store, he observed a man climbing up a rope through a hole in the ceiling. Whitemore and an accomplice were apprehended behind the store by police officers who had arrived at the scene and Shepherd identified Whitemore as the man climbing the rope. Whitemore testified that he was just passing by the store and never entered the same. Subsequently, the jury found the defendant guilty on all three counts of the indictment, and the trial judge sentenced the defendant to three prison terms of two-to-five years each, with the first two being consecutive and with the third running concurrently with the first two terms. Whitemore then appealed his conviction, alleging that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for acquittal because the evidence failed to substantiate the verdict.

Issue:

Was the evidence presented by the prosecution enough to substantiate Whitemore’s verdict?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the evidence introduced by the State was more than sufficient to sustain a conviction on the offenses charged. The Court further held that Whitemore never requested a disclosure of any of the State's evidence and thus, the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidences presented by the prosecution, such as a pair of gloves worn by the accomplice and the testimony concerning the drugs taken from the store. Therefore, the Court affirmed Whitemore’s conviction and concluded that the trial court properly overruled Whitemore’s motion for acquittal.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class