State v. Williams , 195 Ohio App. 3d 807 ( 2011 )

James J. Sweeney, Judge,

concurring.

{¶ 87} Although I concur in the judgment, I join in only some of the reasons articulated by the majority. Specifically, with regard to the first assignment of error concerning the admission of evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B), I believe that the other-acts evidence was probative and potentially admissible as proof of defendant’s intent. However, I agree that such evidence, if admissible, would have been in rebuttal of evidence placing defendant’s intent in issue. Even though defendant’s counsel suggested that the evidence would not establish the requisite intent during opening arguments, I would agree it was error to allow the state to introduce such inflammatory other-acts evidence during its case-in-chief. I would otherwise concur with the reasoning of the majority as to the first assignment of error.

E. Gallagher and Keough, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.