Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
5Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
China Arnold Vs. State of Ohio sentence overturned Nov.2010 Appelate's decision

China Arnold Vs. State of Ohio sentence overturned Nov.2010 Appelate's decision

Ratings: (0)|Views: 113 |Likes:
Published by Malysa Stone
The Montgomery County Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of China Arnold.

Arnold is the Dayton mother convicted of killing her baby, four-week-old Paris Talley, in a microwave oven in August 2005.

The court ruling said there was misconduct by the prosecution when the defense was not given the opportunity to prove Arnold's innocence after the prosecution's star witness recanted her story.

The court also found that the prosecution hid witnesses by not providing addresses and phone numbers to Arnold's attorney's.

When told about the decision, Arnold's mother said "she never lost hope."

Arnold was sentenced in 2008 to life in prison without parole.

She will now be transferred from the state prison to the Montgomery County Jail for a bond hearing.

The Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office released a statement, late Friday afternoon.

County Prosecuting Attorney Mat Heck said he was "astonished" to see that the Court of Appeals had reversed the conviction.

Heck said the prosecutor's office provided copies of all witness statements to the defendant's attorneys.

"Not only was this done before trial, it was above and beyond what was required. Moreover, the prosecutor's office arranged for defense counsel to interview the witness in question in a private office before she testified", said Heck.

The State will file a motion asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider it's decision.
The Montgomery County Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of China Arnold.

Arnold is the Dayton mother convicted of killing her baby, four-week-old Paris Talley, in a microwave oven in August 2005.

The court ruling said there was misconduct by the prosecution when the defense was not given the opportunity to prove Arnold's innocence after the prosecution's star witness recanted her story.

The court also found that the prosecution hid witnesses by not providing addresses and phone numbers to Arnold's attorney's.

When told about the decision, Arnold's mother said "she never lost hope."

Arnold was sentenced in 2008 to life in prison without parole.

She will now be transferred from the state prison to the Montgomery County Jail for a bond hearing.

The Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office released a statement, late Friday afternoon.

County Prosecuting Attorney Mat Heck said he was "astonished" to see that the Court of Appeals had reversed the conviction.

Heck said the prosecutor's office provided copies of all witness statements to the defendant's attorneys.

"Not only was this done before trial, it was above and beyond what was required. Moreover, the prosecutor's office arranged for defense counsel to interview the witness in question in a private office before she testified", said Heck.

The State will file a motion asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider it's decision.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Malysa Stone on May 06, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/08/2011

pdf

text

original

 
[Cite as
State v. Arnold 
, 189 Ohio App.3d 507, 2010-Ohio-5379.]
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIOThe STATE OF OHIO, :Appellee, : C.A. CASE NO. 23155v. : T.C. CASE NO. 06CR4928ARNOLD, : (Criminal Appeal fromCommon Pleas Court)Appellant. :See denial of state’s motion to reconsider,State v. Arnold, 2010-Ohio-6617.. . . . . . . . .O P I N I O NRendered on the 5th day of November, 2010.. . . . . . . . .Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, andCarley J. Ingram and Melissa M. Ford, Assistant ProsecutingAttorneys, for appellee.Jon Paul Rion, for appellant.. . . . . . . . .GRADY, Judge.
{¶ 1}
 
Defendant, China Arnold, appeals from her conviction,following a jury trial, of aggravated murder and the sentence ofimprisonment for life without possibility of parole imposed forthat offense.
 
2
{¶ 2}
 
In the early morning hours of August 30, 2005, four-week-old Paris Talley died after she was placed in a microwave oven andits power was turned on for approximately two minutes. The child’s mother, Arnold, was charged more than one year later, in December2006, with aggravated murder arising from her daughter’s deathafter the cause of Paris Talley’s death was determined.
{¶ 3}
 
A jury trial commenced in late January 2008. The stateoffered circumstantial evidence implicating Arnold in the crime,largely in relation to her access to her child when the crimeoccurred. Arnold’s defense was that following an evening ofdrinking, she was too intoxicated to have committed the crime. Thestate also offered evidence that on the night of her daughter’sdeath, Arnold had said, “I killed my baby.” However, Arnold hadalso explained that her statement expressed remorse for not takingcare to prevent someone else from committing the crime. The statealso offered the testimony of Linda Williams, a “jailhouse snitch,” who testified that Arnold admitted putting her child in the microwave.
{¶ 4}
 
The trial ended in a mistrial when the defense profferednewly discovered evidence that another person, D.T., Arnold’s youngnephew, put the baby in the microwave oven and turned it on. Theproffered evidence was in the form of testimony by M.Q., an eight-
 
3
year-old boy, who claimed to have witnessed D.T. do so.
{¶ 5}
 
A second trial commenced in August 2008. The state againpresented its evidence. Linda Williams’s testimony was offered inthe form of a video recording of her testimony in the first trialbecause she could not be located. M.Q. testified that he saw D.T.put the baby in the microwave oven and turn it on.
{¶ 6}
 
The defense wished to call two additional witnesses inconnection with their defense that it was D.T., not defendant, whoput the baby in the microwave. Demetri Miles and Terry McDonald would testify that D.T. told them he had placed the baby in the microwave. If offered to prove the truth of that assertion byD.T., the testimony of the two witnesses was inadmissible hearsay.The defense therefore intended to offer the evidence to impeachD.T.’s credibility should he be called as a witness by the defenseand deny making the statement. However, Evid.R. 607(A) wouldpreclude the defense from doing that because, being aware that D.T.had more recently denied making the statement to Miles andMcDonald, the defense could not demonstrate surprise. The stateexpressed no intention to call D.T. as its witness. The defenseasked the court to call D.T. as a court’s witness, which wouldallow his impeachment by the defense. Evid.R. 614. The courtdenied the request. The testimony of Miles and McDonald was

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Malysa Stone liked this
Malysa Stone liked this
Malysa Stone liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->