State v. Campbell, Unpublished Decision (12-30-2003) , 2003 Ohio 7149 ( 2003 )

{¶ 30} While Lt. Wolf's testimony was not as blatantly inadmissible as it was in the first trial, it was inadmissible nonetheless. The entire "consistent with" litany should have been stricken. For a discussion of the reasons for excluding this testimony, one need go no further than the previous case of State v. Campbell.¹ Therefore I dissent as to the first assignment of error.

{¶ 31} The allied-offense issue continues to offend me. The Ohio Supreme Court has muddled the law by its unfortunate holding in State v.Rance.² But we must follow Rance, even if it is bad law. Therefore, I reluctantly concur in the balance of the majority opinion.

¹ 1st Dist. No. C-010567, 2002-Ohio-1143.

² 85 Ohio St.3d 632, 1999-Ohio-291, 710 N.E.2d 699.