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 64 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Sipple C-190462VOYEURISM – ATTEMPT – SUFFICIENCY – SEX OFFENSES – REGISTRATION – SENTENCING ENTRY – R.C. 2929.23(B): Defendant’s conviction for attempted voyeurism in violation of R.C. 2907.08(D) was based upon sufficient evidence where defendant took a substantial step toward completing the offense of voyeurism by surreptitiously placing his cell phone under the dress and between the legs of the victim, and defendant’s concurrent statements indicated that he intended to photograph or videotape the victim’s body or undergarments. [But see DISSENT: The evidence was insufficient to convince a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant took a substantial step toward violation of R.C. 2907.08(D) where the evidence showed the cell phone placed under the victim’s dress was inactive and had a black screen, and there was no evidence of the type of cell phone used by defendant and its capabilities or whether there were any shortcut buttons on the phone to place it in camera mode or any secret applications installed to take hidden photographs.] The trial court did not err by failing to include a summary of defendant’s sex offender registration duties and their duration in the sentencing entry; the registration duties and their duration are set by statute, and by including the tier classification in the entry, properly informing defendant of his registration duties and their duration at the sentencing hearing, and ensuring that defendant received, understood, and signed a form detailing his registration duties and their duration, the court complied with the requirements of R.C. 2929.23(B).CrouseHamilton 4/16/2021 4/16/2021 2021-Ohio-1319
State v. Ward C-190656SENTENCING: The trial court erred by sentencing defendant to 18-month prison terms for community-control violations where the court failed comply with statutory notification requirements.WinklerHamilton 4/16/2021 4/16/2021 2021-Ohio-1320
State v. Johnson C-190658, C-190659ASSAULT – EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s assault conviction was supported by the weight and sufficiency of the evidence where the trial court reasonably resolved credibility disputes against defendant.BergeronHamilton 4/16/2021 4/16/2021 2021-Ohio-1321
Bogdanov v. Ahres C-190660HEARSAY – EXPERT TESTIMONY – LEADING QUESTIONS: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an expert witness to reference unnamed studies where: (1) the expert did not provide any precise statement from the studies; (2) the expert merely referenced the studies to explain the basis for his opinion; and (3) the expert clarified that his opinion was based upon his own education, training, and experience. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defense counsel to ask leading questions of the defense expert on direct examination because the evidence had already been well-established and the questions were not prejudicial.BergeronHamilton 4/16/2021 4/16/2021 2021-Ohio-1322
QFS Transp., L.L.C. v. Wall Street Sys., Inc. C-200102, C-200114TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE – UNFAIR COMPETITION –CONTRACT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Where the parties are unable to demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact with respect to a necessary element of their respective claims, the trial court was correct to grant cross-motions for summary judgment. The existence of a notice provision does not prevent a contract from being terminable at will. The court correctly granted summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim for unfair competition by sham litigation where defendant could not show that plaintiff had the subjective intent to injure defendant’s ability to be competitive.CrouseHamilton 4/16/2021 4/16/2021 2021-Ohio-1323
State v. Converse C-190480R.C. 2950.06 – SEX OFFENSES – REGISTRATION – CLERICAL ERROR – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – COUNSEL: A conviction under R.C. 2950.06 for failure to ve4rify an address was not unconstitutional and did not violate defendant’s right to a jury trial when the duty to register was mandatory and was based on a delinquency adjudication. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to dismiss defendant’s indictment for a violation of R.C. 2950.06 where the charge, which was based on a duty to register stemming from a juvenile adjudication, was not unconstitutional and did not violate defendant’s right to a jury trial. Where the trial court informed defendant during the sentencing hearing that defendant faced 18 months in prison for a community-control violation, the statement in the trial court’s sentencing entry that defendant faced 36 months in prison for a community-control violation was a clerical error.MyersHamilton 4/14/2021 4/14/2021 2021-Ohio-1274
State ex rel. Neal v. Cincinnati C-200202MANDAMUS – WRITS: The trial court erred by awarding mandamus relief—ordering the city to promote relator to captain with back pay—because relator could not identify any clear legal right and duty requiring the promotion.BergeronHamilton 4/14/2021 4/14/2021 2021-Ohio-1276
State v. Mead C-190604, C-190620, C-190621, C-190622, C-190623, C-190624, C-190625CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SPEEDY TRIAL –AUTHENTICATION – EVID.R. 404(B) – OTHER ACTS: The trial court did not deprive defendant of a fair trial when it compelled him to wear the same clothes for four consecutive days of trial. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on speedy-trial grounds: the state’s inaction was not enough to outweigh the absence of particularized trial prejudice. Sufficient testimony from the victim was presented to authenticate the duplicate recordings of phone calls between the victim and defendant. The trial court did not err in permitting the victim to testify about defendant’s threats and other acts of domestic violence where the evidence was not premised on improper character inferences and was probative of the victim’s credibility.CrouseHamilton 4/9/2021 4/9/2021 2021-Ohio-1107
Banker's Choice, L.L.C. v. Cincinnati Zoning Bd. of Appeals C-200117ADMINISTRATIVE MISCELLANEOUS – ZONING: The trial court did not err by adopting a magistrate’s decision ordering the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness to a property owner to demolish a structure designated as historic where the court’s determination that the owner would suffer economic hardship if the certificate was not approved was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence; the record contained evidence which, if believed, supported the trial court’s determination that, without approval of a certificate of appropriateness, the property would be deprived of all economically viable use and the property owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations would not be maintained and that the economic hardship was neither created nor exacerbated by the property owner.MyersHamilton 4/9/2021 4/9/2021 2021-Ohio-1206
State v. Jewell C-200046SENTENCING – R.C. 2941.25 – ALLIED OFFENSES: The trial court’s imposition of a 13-year aggregate prison term for two offenses was not contrary to law where the record demonstrated that the charges and the accompanying specifications did not arise from the same transaction or animus, and thus should not be merged as allied offenses. Defendant’s 13-year aggregate sentence on two robbery charges did not constitute plain error where Defendant failed to raise the issue of allied offenses before the trial court and where Defendant the State jointly requested that the trial court impose the sentenced.BockHamilton 4/2/2021 4/2/2021 2021-Ohio-1108