AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Employees from Data Recovery Center (DRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, contacted the FBI after finding suspicious images on a hard drive sent by the Defendant for service. The images included videos of the Defendant setting up a camera and capturing footage of his minor children and their babysitters in private acts. The FBI referred the case to the local police, leading to the Defendant's arrest and charges of sexual exploitation of a child and voyeurism (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that his confrontation and due process rights were violated, evidence was erroneously admitted, and prosecutorial misconduct occurred, which should preclude retrial (para 1).
• Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's rights were not violated, evidence was properly admitted, and there was no prosecutorial misconduct, thus affirming the convictions (paras 8-34).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's confrontation rights were violated due to the absence of testimony from DRC employees who recovered data from his hard drive (para 9).
• Whether the Defendant's due process rights were violated by the State's failure to provide notice of its intent to call Agent Weir as an expert witness (para 17).
• Whether the DRC order form was hearsay and admitted in error (para 26).
• Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred, affecting the Defendant's right to a fair trial (para 33).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for one count of sexual exploitation of a child and two counts of voyeurism of victims under the age of eighteen (para 37).

Reasons

• The Court found that any potential violation of the Defendant's confrontation rights was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence against him, including his own admissions and the identification of victims and locations in the videos (paras 9-14). The Court also held that the late disclosure of Agent Weir as an expert witness did not prejudice the Defendant, as his testimony was not material to the outcome of the trial (paras 17-24). The Court acknowledged the erroneous admission of the DRC order form as hearsay but deemed it harmless in light of the other evidence presented at trial (paras 26-32). Lastly, the Court declined to address the prosecutorial misconduct claim due to insufficient development and preservation of the argument (paras 33-35).