Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 123 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Carney C-160660WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY - EVIDENCE - JUVENILE ADJUDICATION - SENTENCING: A juvenile adjudication can constitute the disability upon which defendant's having-weapons-under-a-disability conviction is based. (State v. Carnes, 2016-Ohio-8019, 75 N.E.3d 774 (1st Dist.), State v. McCray, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160272, 2017-Ohio-2996, and State v. Barfield, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160678, 2017-Ohio-8243, followed.) [But see DISSENT: If a juvenile adjudication is not reliable enough to enhance a criminal sentence, it is not sufficiently reliable to alone sustain proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an element of a crime.] Defendant failed to meet his burden to show that the trial court acted vindictively in sentencing him because he rejected a plea bargain where the record shows that the trial court referenced the rejected plea bargain only in a discussion about the performance of defendant's counsel, it did not discuss plea bargaining at sentencing, it considered the serious nature of the charges and defendant's criminal history, and it listened to defendant and his family members at sentencing. The trial court did not err in considering defendant's juvenile adjudication in determining whether consecutive sentences were appropriate. (State v. Bromagen, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120148, 2012-Ohio-5757, followed.)DetersHamilton 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 2017-Ohio-8585
State v. Saunders C-160781ASSAULT - EVIDENCE - WITNESSES - CREDIBILITY - ALLOCUTION - SENTENCING: Defendant's conviction for assault was supported by sufficient evidence where the victim testified that defendant had started the fight and had repeatedly hit and kicked him, and the trial court specifically found the victim's testimony to be more credible than defendant's testimony. Defendant's sentence must be reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing, because the trial court denied defendant's right of allocution where the court failed to personally address defendant and allow him the opportunity to speak.ZayasHamilton 11/15/2017 11/15/2017 2017-Ohio-8557
State v. Smith C-160836; C-160837CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - COUNSEL - PRO SE MOTIONS - EVIDENCE - BURGLARY - DRUGS - TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE - REBUTTAL TESTIMONY - HEARSAY - EVID.R. 613(B) - PROSECUTOR - ALLIED OFFENSES - R.C. 2941.25 - SENTENCING: The trial court properly determined that the police officer had probable cause to arrest defendant when the officer witnessed a large bag of marijuana sticking out of defendant's pocket. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for new counsel where defendant failed to articulate a basis for the motion. A trial court may not address a pro se motion to dismiss and a pro se motion for an independent laboratory analysis, filed by a defendant who is represented by counsel, when counsel informs the trial court that the motions are without merit. Where defendant stipulated to the admissibility of a 911 call, he may not challenge its admissibility on appeal: 911 calls are usually admissible under the excited-utterance or present-sense-impression exceptions to the hearsay rule; they are not testimonial in nature, and therefore, not subject to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. Evid.R. 613(B) permits the impeachment of an adverse witness with the extrinsic evidence of the witness's prior inconsistent statement when the witness denies making the statement, and the evidence concerns a fact of consequence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the police officers to testify that the substantial amount of cocaine recovered from defendant indicated that it was for distribution, because the testimony did not constitute an expert opinion and was based on the officers' knowledge and perceptions through their experience. The prosecutor's comments during closing argument were a fair commentary on the evidence and not a misstatement of the law; therefore, defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. Trial counsel's conclusion that defendant's pro se motions were without merit and counsel's conduct during voir dire were sound trial strategy, and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's convictions for burglary, trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, and tampering with evidence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim testified that he lived in the burglarized apartment, had recently left to take a friend to work, and could have been home at the time of the burglary; the officers' testimony that the amount of cocaine was inconsistent with personal use and indicated trafficking demonstrated the cocaine was intended for sale or resale; and testimony demonstrated that defendant threw the cocaine, threw the marijuana, and dispersed the marijuana throughout the apartment. The trial court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors before imposing sentence and made the requisite findings to impose consecutive sentences and incorporated them into the sentencing entry. The failure of the trial court to inform defendant of the requirement to submit to DNA testing was harmless. The trial court erred by imposing sentences for both trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine because they were allied offenses of similar import, and therefore, the cause must be remanded for a resentencing hearing at which the state may elect which offense to pursue for resentencing.ZayasHamilton 11/15/2017 11/15/2017 2017-Ohio-8558
State v. Colbert C-160866JAIL-TIME CREDIT-APPELLATE REVIEW-JURISDICTION: The common pleas court cannot be said to have erred in declining to grant the relief sought in prisoner's motion to correct jail-time credit, when he failed to invoke the jurisdiction conferred by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) by requesting that a transcript of proceedings demonstrating that the error had not been raised at sentencing be filed with the common pleas court for its decision on his motion.Per CuriamHamilton 11/15/2017 11/15/2017 2017-Ohio-8559
Gen. Elec. Credit Union v. Jeff Schmitt Auto Group, Inc. C-170061APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - JURISDICTION - CIV.R. 54(B): Even with the trial court's Civ.R. 54(B) determination that there was no just reason for delay, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the trial court's decision that determined the liability between parties in a contract dispute, but failed to determine damages.MockHamilton 11/15/2017 11/15/2017 2017-Ohio-8560
State v. Amos C-160717, C-160718SEX OFFENSES - CLASSIFICATION - REGISTRATION - JUVENILE - JURISDICTION: In a prosecution for failing to notify the sheriff of an address change, defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment was the proper vehicle to challenge whether he had a duty to register under R.C. Chapter 2950, and where defendant had no duty to register, the trial court did not err in dismissing the indictment. Where defendant had no duty to register under R.C. Chapter 2950, the trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to, or in dismissing his indictment for, failing to provide notice of an address change. The juvenile court had no jurisdiction to classify defendant as a Tier I sex offender, and defendant has no duty to register under R.C. Chapter 2950, because the court did not properly complete the statutorily-required process for classifying defendant as a juvenile-offender registrant: after defendant had been classified as a juvenile-offender registrant under R.C. 2152.83, R.C. 2152.84 required the juvenile court to hold a completion-of-disposition hearing to complete the classification process; and the juvenile court did not complete the classification process, when it did not hold an R.C. 2152.84 completion-of-disposition hearing before completing the disposition for defendant's sexually-oriented offense by discharging him from parole. [But see DISSENT: Once the juvenile court makes an appropriate initial classification under R.C. 2152.83, it is permanently vested with jurisdiction to review the classification under R.C. 2152.84 and 2152.85.]CunninghamHamilton 11/8/2017 11/8/2017 2017-Ohio-8448
Thomas v. Othman C-160827COLLATERAL ATTACK: The collateral-attack doctrine barred the granting of equitable relief in a separate lawsuit for two net losers in a Ponzi scheme to recover money invested in the scheme from two other net-loser victims of the scheme based on claims of fraudulent transfer and unjust enrichment: all parties were members of the class of plaintiff net losers who had recovered a percentage of their losses based on a pro rata formula applied to each parties' previously determined losses in class-action cases, and the plaintiffs had accepted the pro rata distributions that settled the class-action cases despite knowing of their purported claims against the two other net losers.CunninghamHamilton 11/8/2017 11/8/2017 2017-Ohio-8449
Griffin v. Griffin C-170026APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - DIVORCE - JURISDICTION - FINAL ORDER: The trial court's judgment overruling husband's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction wife's complaint for divorce was not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 because the absence of an immediate appeal did not foreclose appropriate relief in the future. (Rijo v. Rijo, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-93070, 1995 WL 35730 (Jan. 31, 1995), overruled.)DetersHamilton 11/8/2017 11/8/2017 2017-Ohio-8450
Rusin v. Buehrer C-160772WORKERS' COMPENSATION: The trial court's judgment that plaintiff firefighter was not entitled to participate in the workers' compensation fund for ALS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: although the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff had failed to prove general causation where plaintiff presented evidence that exposure to heavy metals was capable of causing ALS, its finding that plaintiff did not prove that exposure to heavy metals specifically caused his ALS was supported by competent, credible evidence. The trial court did not err in failing to apply the R.C. 4123.68(W) presumption to plaintiff's ALS, because the statutory presumption applies only to "cardiovascular, pulmonary, or respiratory disease[s]," and both experts testified that plaintiff's ALS was a neurological disease. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence where it was not relevant to whether plaintiff's ALS was caused by his exposure to toxic substances during his work as a firefighter.ZayasHamilton 11/3/2017 11/3/2017 2017-Ohio-8411
In re S.R. C-170366APPELLATE REVIEW - CHILDREN - CUSTODY - FINAL ORDER - JURISDICTION: The juvenile court's judgment was a final order because it clearly set forth the parties' responsibilities and obligations where (1) the juvenile court signed the magistrate's decision during the objections period, adopted it and entered it as a judgment of the court, which became final when the objections were overruled and (2) the disposition was stated in the juvenile court's judgment entry, and the magistrate's decision was adopted and approved; either procedure was sufficient to render the juvenile court's judgment a final order. The juvenile court's decision that granting legal custody of the child to her great-grandparents was in her best interest was supported by competent, credible evidence and was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.MillerHamilton 11/3/2017 11/3/2017 2017-Ohio-8412