Notwithstanding the lack of uniform analysis of the Act, this article should isolate the main areas of confusion and hopefully provide some "food for thought" which may in itself help to resolve the ambiguities of the statute. Moreover, the discussion offered herein may prompt the recently established Ohio Evidence Rules Committee to devote some time to the formulation of a clearer evidentiary statement on prosecutorial use of "other acts" testimony in criminal cases.

Included in

Evidence Commons