OH1: Controlled buy that led to SW admissible as 404(b)

The state succeeded in admitting as 404(b) evidence the controlled buy that led to the search warrant to “tell[ ] the story of these crimes.” It was presented on appeal as plain error, but it was held not to be error at all. [It didn’t help that appellant was a sovereign citizen who got himself excluded from the courtroom.] State v. Thompson, 2025-Ohio-4359 (1st Dist. Sep. 17, 2025). This appears common in Ohio:

[*P86] It is not necessary to exclude evidence of other conduct when “the ‘other acts’ form part of the immediate background of the … crime charged in the indictment.” State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66, 73 (1975). “Other-acts evidence is admissible when the acts form a part of the ‘immediate background of the act’ as part of the charged crime.” State v. Warth, 2023-Ohio-3641, ¶ 57 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. David, 2021-Ohio-4004, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.).

[*P87] Here, the photos and testimony about the controlled buy were relevant and necessary to explain the basis for the search warrant and to “tell[ ] the story of these crimes.” See State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-1194, ¶ 118. Evidence that Thompson engaged in selling drugs to a confidential informant in his home was not presented to prove his character or that he acted in conformity with that character. See id. Rather, the evidence provided the immediate factual background for the offenses with which Thompson was charged, established his knowledge of the drugs in his home, and absence of mistake. See State v. Orrell, 2024-Ohio-1194, ¶ 45 (7th Dist.) (explaining that controlled buys within a week of the search warrant were admissible to show defendant knew the drugs were in his home).