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 18 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Jordan C-180559, C-180560CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – PROBABLE CAUSE – ARREST – SENTENCING – CRIM.R. 36: The trial court erred in considering defendant’s post-arrest admissions when ruling on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to his arrest, but the error was harmless where the remaining evidence before the court established probable cause that defendant had committed the crime for which he was arrested. Where the trial court announced a three-year driver’s license suspension during the sentencing hearing, but the sentencing entry reflected a five-year driver’s license suspension, the sentencing entry clearly contained a clerical error for which the proper remedy is to remand the cause to the trial court for a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the license-suspension portion of the sentencing entry pursuant to Crim.R. 36.CrouseHamilton 2/28/2020 2/28/2020 2020-Ohio-689
State v. Smith C-180227AGGRAVATED MURDER – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – SELF-DEFENSE – JURIES – PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES – CRIM.R. 24 – SENTENCING – APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL: The trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the victim’s tattoos and t-shirt where the evidence was not relevant to the determination of the initial-aggressor element of defendant’s self-defense claim. Under Crim.R. 24(E), a party’s failure to exercise a peremptory challenge waives that party’s right to that particular challenge. The trial court did not err in limiting defense counsel’s questioning of a prospective juror where defense counsel had waived his fourth, and final, peremptory challenge. Defendant’s conviction for aggravated murder was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that defendant was complicit in the predicate offense of aggravated robbery. A sentence for aggravated murder is not subject to appellate review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). The trial court did not err by ordering that defendant serve his sentence for aggravated murder consecutively to his sentence for having a weapon while under a disability where the trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing and included those findings in the sentencing entry.CrouseHamilton 2/26/2020 2/26/2020 2020-Ohio-649
State v. Showes C-180552CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – REASONABLE SUSPICION – PAT-DOWN: The trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered after a pat-down, because the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous to permit the pat-down.ZayasHamilton 2/26/2020 2/26/2020 2020-Ohio-650
State v. Devaughn C-180586EVIDENCE – FELONIOUS ASSAULT – FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER OF A POLICE OFFICER – DRUGS – CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION: Defendant’s convictions for felonious assault and failure to comply with an order of a police officer were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state presented evidence that the undercover police officers identified themselves as police officers, ordered the defendant to exit from the car, and, instead of exiting from the car, defendant drove toward the officers at a high rate of speed. Defendant’s convictions for drug possession and trafficking were not supported by sufficient evidence where the state’s evidence established proximity to the drugs but did not establish that defendant exercised control over the drugs or knew that the drugs were present; therefore, the evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession.ZayasHamilton 2/26/2020 2/26/2020 2020-Ohio-651
State v. Bennett C-190181AGGRAVATED MENACING – WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – CONFRONTATION CLAUSE – WITNESSES – IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE: Defendant’s conviction for aggravated menacing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that defendant ran toward the victim with a knife and threatened to kill her. Defendant failed to establish a Confrontation Clause violation where the trial court did not prohibit defense counsel from engaging in cross-examination. The trial court did not err in excluding impeachment evidence where the evidence had minimal relevancy to the allegations against defendant and other witnesses testified to the same effect.CrouseHamilton 2/26/2020 2/26/2020 2020-Ohio-652
State ex rel. S.L. v. Rucker C-190248WRITS – PROHIBITION: Under Marsy’s Law, a crime victim is entitled to a writ of prohibition restraining the trial court judge from enforcing an order allowing the criminal defendant and his counsel to access the victim’s residence: a trial court has no authority to issue an order to a nonparty in a criminal case requiring the nonparty to allow a criminal defendant to access the nonparty’s private residence, and the victim has no other adequate remedy at law.WinklerHamilton 2/21/2020 2/21/2020 2020-Ohio-584
State v. Ceaser C-180648DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – EVIDENCE: Where the evidence established that defendant received mail at the victim’s home, kept his clothing at the victim’s home, commuted to and from work from the victim’s home, and was present both when the victim went to bed and when she woke, the state presented sufficient evidence that the victim was a “family or household member” of defendant’s pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(F)(1)(a)(iii). Where the evidence established that defendant grabbed the victim’s neck with his hand and pushed her head into a mirror, resulting in a cut to the victim’s face that required stitches, the state presented sufficient evidence that defendant had acted knowingly, i.e., defendant had been aware that his acts were likely to cause the victim physical harm.MyersHamilton 2/19/2020 2/19/2020 2020-Ohio-540
State v. Warren C-180649HEARSAY: Where, in reaching a guilty verdict, the trial court expressly considered statements of the prosecutor that were inadmissible hearsay, the court erred in relying on the hearsay, and defendant was prejudiced in that there is a reasonable possibility that it may have contributed to his conviction; therefore, the error was not harmless.ZayasHamilton 2/19/2020 2/19/2020 2020-Ohio-541
State v. Kinley C-190270SENTENCING – COUNSEL – COURT COSTS – JAIL-TIME CREDIT: Where no sentencing findings were required, and all sentences imposed fell within the applicable statutory ranges and were not contrary to law, and where the trial court stated on the record that it had considered the relevant sentencing factors, the trial court did not err in the imposition of sentence. Trial counsel could not be considered ineffective for failing to make a motion to waive the imposition of court costs at sentencing where defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial court would have granted such a motion had it been made. Where the judgment entry reflected that defendant had been awarded two days of jail-time credit, but at the sentencing hearing the trial court had actually awarded defendant 52 days of jail-time credit, the entry contained a clerical error that must be corrected nunc pro tunc.MyersHamilton 2/19/2020 2/19/2020 2020-Ohio-542
State v. Green C-180656THEFT BY DECEPTION – EVIDENCE: Defendant’s conviction for theft by deception pursuant to R.C. 2913.02(A)(3) was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state presented evidence that defendant engaged in an act of deception to obtain possession of the victim’s property and the trier of fact found defendant’s testimony not credible.BergeronHamilton 2/14/2020 2/14/2020 2020-Ohio-500
12