| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
In re H.J.H.
| C-180019 | CHILDREN – CUSTODY – EVIDENCE – PARENTAL UNSUITABILITY: Where both father and maternal grandparents filed motions for custody of the minor child, the juvenile court erred in applying a best-interest analysis and awarding custody to grandparents where there was insufficient evidence that father was unsuitable and that an award of custody to father would be detrimental to the child. Where there was insufficient evidence that father was unsuitable, the juvenile court’s judgment denying father’s motion for custody and granting custody to the child’s grandparents must be reversed and judgment entered awarding custody to father. [But see DISSENT: Where the juvenile court erred in applying a best-interest analysis in awarding custody to grandparents and denying father’s motion for custody, the cause should be remanded so that the juvenile court can determine father’s suitability using the appropriate criteria.] | Zayas | Hamilton |
1/16/2019
|
1/16/2019
| 2019-Ohio-116 |
|
State v. Cephas
| C-180105 | INVITED ERROR – EVIDENCE – PHOTOGRAPHS – COUNSEL – APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES: The admission of statements by a victim who did not testify at trial was invited error where the state did not elicit the statements on direct examination of the police officer witness, defense counsel asked the witness about the statements on cross-examination, and the state questioned the witness about the statements on redirect examination. The trial court did not err in admitting a photograph of a child victim that showed the child’s full body with medical tubing where the photograph was relevant to prove serious physical harm and physical harm by means of a deadly weapon, the photograph was not needlessly cumulative, and the probative value of the photograph was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant. Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel where defense counsel admitted in opening argument that defendant had struggled with substance abuse: counsel’s admissions were tactical decisions and defendant failed to overcome the presumption that those admissions were sound trial strategy. The appellate court cannot consider on appeal defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on matters outside the record. The trial court did not err in sentencing defendant where defendant failed to affirmatively show that the court did not consider the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 sentencing factors, and where the record shows that the trial court engaged in the requisite analysis and made the findings necessary to support the imposition of consecutive sentences and that those findings were supported by the record. | Mock | Hamilton |
1/11/2019
|
1/11/2019
| 2019-Ohio-52 |