|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Brown
| C-240328 | MANIFEST WEIGHT – MURDER – SELF-DEFENSE – SENTENCING – SPECIFICATIONS – R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g): Defendant’s conviction for murder was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because the State, in disproving defendant’s self-defense defense, demonstrated both that defendant was responsible for creating the conflict and that defendant lacked a bona fide belief that he faced imminent death or great bodily harm. The trial court did not err in failing to merge the firearm specifications for purposes of sentencing and ordering them to be served consecutively because R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) requires that certain offenders receive prison terms for multiple specifications, and imposing separate prison terms for multiple firearm specifications is required even when the criminal offenses to which those firearm specifications are attached have been merged as allied offenses. See State v. Bollar, 2022-Ohio-4370, ¶ 1. | Moore | Hamilton |
7/3/2025
|
7/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2351 |
|
Courtney v. Durrani
| C-240295, C-240296 | CIV.R. 42 — EVID.R. 601(B)(5)(b) — HABIT EVIDENCE — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE — ABSENT-DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION – CIV.R. 19(A): The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Civ.R. 42 in joining plaintiffs’ medical claims for trial where plaintiffs proceeded under similar legal theories, received similar surgeries from defendant, and presented identical expert witnesses, thus creating common questions of law and fact. [See CONCURRENCE: The trial court did not om holding a joint professional-negligence jury trial where this court’s precedent permits such claims to be joined and defendant-doctor failed to raise a general prejudice argument below; however, jointing professional-negligence claims for trial against the same defendant-professional carries an unacceptable risk of prejudice from jury confusion and verdicts based on improper propensity considerations.] The trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a physician witness as to defendant’s habit in advising his patients where the physician witness did not testify to a proper foundation for defendant’s habit, but the error was harmless because there was no indication the jury relied on this testimony in reaching its verdicts. The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of an expert medical witness where the witness satisfied the standard of active clinical practice in the July 2023 version of Civ.R. 601(B)(5)(b), which applied to plaintiffs’ cases because they were pending at the time. The trial court did not err in rejecting defendants’ request for a comparative negligence jury instruction, because defendants failed to present evidence that plaintiffs’ failure to complete physical therapy and their return to demanding jobs caused their ongoing injuries. The trial court did not commit reversible error in issuing an absent-defendant jury instruction that advised that defendant doctor’s absence from trial gave rise to a negative inference but also advised that the jury retained the discretion to make or reject inferences. The trial court did not err in determining that joining plaintiffs’ insurers as the real parties in interest under Civ.R. 19(A) was infeasible on the eve of trial and in curing their absence from trial by excusing defendant’s payment for past medical expenses absent appropriate releases. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
7/2/2025
|
7/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2335 |
|
State v. Benson
| C-240369 | POSTCONVICTION PETITION — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — EXPERT TESTIMONY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing where defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of her trial would have been different but for her trial counsel’s failure to qualify the defense witness as an expert so as to challenge the State’s expert witness in accident reconstruction where: the defense witness was an expert in videography and computer imaging and not accident reconstruction; the jury was able to review the extensive video evidence for themselves and observe any details that the defense witness would have testified about; the jury heard the defense witness’s trial testimony that the video showed that defendant driver’s front tires had already been turned towards the victim as a result of defendant driver reversing her car; and defendant driver’s credibility was damaged where the video evidence contradicted defendant driver’s statement to police. | Crouse | Hamilton |
7/2/2025
|
7/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2336 |
|
State v. Jones
| C-240397 | DUE PROCESS — DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE: Defendant’s due-process rights were not violated where the State failed to preserve an officer’s body-worn-camera video where the video was only potentially useful and not materially exculpatory, and defendant did not show bad faith on the part of the State. | Zayas | Hamilton |
7/2/2025
|
7/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2337 |
|
In re S.H.
| C-250137 | PARENTAL TERMINATION — R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) — R.C. 2151.353(E) — BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD: The juvenile court’s order terminating appellant-father’s parental rights and granting permanent custody of two children to the child-services agency was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where father failed to attend drug screenings as required by the case plan, was indicted on felony drug-trafficking charges during the pendency of the case, and could not establish that he had any stable income or housing, which constituted clear and convincing evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings that the children could not or should not be placed with father within a reasonable time and that permanent custody to the child-services agency was in the children’s best interest. | Bock | Hamilton |
7/2/2025
|
7/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2338 |
|
In re C/B Children
| C-250146 | R.C. 2151.414 — PARENTAL TERMINATION — BEST INTEREST: The juvenile court’s decision granting permanent custody of the children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that mother had failed to substantially remedy the concerns that initially caused the children’s removal. | Zayas | Hamilton |
7/2/2025
|
7/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2339 |
|
Worley v. Durrani
| C-240386 | Deborah Worley, Admr. of the Estate of Fay Rosebery v. Abubakar Atiq Durrani, M.D., et al. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2245 |
|
State v. Stokes
| C-240420 | ASSAULT – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE – SELF-DEFENSE: In an assault case where defendant tenant slammed her apartment door on the landlord victim causing injury, the trial court’s guilty verdict was supported by sufficient evidence of defendant’s identity as the offender and knowledge that she committed the act charged, because she admitted such by way of her self-defense claim, and evidence showed that she was the individual living in the apartment unit and that she slammed the door shut. The trial court’s decision that the State disproved defendant’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, because evidence showed that defendant knew it was the victim entering her apartment and that she purposefully slammed the door shut on him. The trial court did not apply the incorrect burden of proof as to defendant’s self-defense claim, even though it did not explicitly state the standard and which element it believed the State disproved. | Nestor | Hamilton |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2246 |
|
Mills Fence Co., L.L.C. v. Kinne
| C-240452 | FIDUCIARY DUTY – NONPROFIT CORPORATION: The trial court erred when it held that defendants directors of a dissolved nonprofit corporation owed plaintiff creditor of the dissolved corporation fiduciary duties, as the relationship between the two does not rise to the level of one with special trust and confidence and under Ohio law directors do not owe creditors of a nonprofit corporation fiduciary duties. | Nestor | Hamilton |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2247 |
|
State v. Fields
| C-240505 | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — SELF-DEFENSE — ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE — CHARACTER EVIDENCE — CHARACTER OF THE VICTIM — EVID.R. 404 — EVID.R. 405 — FINANCIAL SANCTIONS — SENTENCING — NUNC PRO TUNC: Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence on defendant’s claim of self-defense where the record credibly supports that defendant was at fault in creating the altercation by spraying the father of her child with mace when they crossed paths during the exchange of the child at the paternal grandmother’s apartment. While the trial court may have erred in precluding defendant from testifying to specific instances of conduct allegedly perpetrated by the father of the child against former romantic partners to inform defendant’s state of mind during the confrontation, any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence contravening defendant’s self-defense claim. The portion of the sentencing entry imposing a fine is sua sponte reversed and the matter is remanded for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc entry reflecting that the fine was remitted as stated in open court at the sentencing hearing. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2248 |
|
State v. Hinton
| C-240518 | Operating a Vehicle Impaired ("OVI") — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where defendant was involved in a single-car crash late at night; defendant admitted to consuming alcohol at a bar before the crash; defendant had slurred speech, glassy eyes, erratic behavior, and was unsteady on her feet, and where there was no evidence demonstrating that defendant’s characteristics of impairment were due to a head injury sustained in the car crash. | Bock | Hamilton |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2249 |
|
State v. Wilcox
| C-220472 | MURDER – HEARSAY – EXCITED UTTERANCE – PRESENT-SENSE IMPRESSION – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – SELF-DEFENSE – SENTENCING: The trial court did not err when it admitted certain statements made by a nontestifying witness in a body-worn camera video, and its admission of inadmissible statements made in the same body-worn camera video constituted harmless error, because there was ample other evidence supporting the jury’s guilty verdict. Defendant’s murder conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because evidence showed that his version of the events was inconsistent with the video evidence and other witness testimony. Defendant did not show that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he failed to show how his trial counsel’s performance was prejudicial to his defense. Defendant did not demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to include his requested jury instruction, because the trial court’s instructions already specified that he did not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. Defendant did not show that the trial court erred when it sentenced him to consecutive sentences, as its decision to do so was not clearly and convincingly contrary to the record or to the law. | Nestor | Hamilton |
6/25/2025
|
6/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2207 |
|
Gipson v. Mercy Health Sys. of S.W. Ohio
| C-240363 | COVID-19 — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — TIMELINESS — MOTION TO STRIKE – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: The trial court properly struck plaintiff’s expert affidavit where it was filed after the deadline, which was set with her agreement, for filing a response to defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment. Where the only material filed by plaintiff in response to defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment was properly stricken by the trial court, the court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment because plaintiff could not show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. | Nestor | Hamilton |
6/25/2025
|
6/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2208 |
|
State v. Geralds
| C-240512 | INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — WEAPONS WHILE UNDER A DISABILITY — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of the warrantless search where the record contains no evidence which would justify the filing of a motion to suppress. Defendant’s conviction for having weapons while under a disability was supported by sufficient evidence where the firearm was located in a dresser drawer in defendant’s bedroom and defendant acknowledged the presence of the firearm for protection. Defendant’s conviction for having weapons while under a disability was not against the weight of the evidence where defendant admitted that he was aware of the firearm concealed in the dresser drawer. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/25/2025
|
6/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2209 |
|
Porter v. Hammond N. Condominium Assn.
| C-240571, C-240572 | RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS – REAL COVENANTS – BIFURCATION – EQUITABLE RELIEF – APPELLATE JURISDICTION – R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) – CIV.R. 54(B) The court of appeals had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a trial court’s order, where the trial court resolved one or more complete claims for relief and did not abuse its discretion in certifying its order as a final judgment under Civ.R. 54(B). Because a claim for damages against a condominium owners association for breach of the condominium’s declarations and by-laws is in the nature of a suit for breach of a real covenant in a deed, and because actions in covenant were tried to a jury at common law, the Ohio Constitution preserves the right to a jury trial in damages actions for breach of a condominium’s declarations and bylaws. Where appellants had multiple claims that shared disputed issues of fact, and where appellants were entitled to a jury trial on some of the claims but not others, the trial court erred and denied appellants their rights to a jury trial by resolving disputed factual issues underpinning both claims following a bench trial. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/25/2025
|
6/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2210 |
|
State v. Cragwell
| C-240640 | SENTENCING — MAXIMUM SENTENCE — DUE PROCESS: The trial court did not err by imposing a maximum sentence where the court received and reviewed a presentence investigation report, reviewed defendant’s extensive criminal history, and imposed a sentence within the statutory range for a third-degree felony. Defendant was not deprived of her due-process rights during the sentencing hearing where defendant did not develop a due-process argument and the record does not suggest that any due-process violations occurred that undermined the integrity of the proceedings. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/25/2025
|
6/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2211 |
|
In re T.B.
| C-250161 | PERMANENT CUSTODY — R.C. 2151.414 — BEST INTEREST — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT: Where Mother failed to remedy the concerns of the children services agency regarding her mental health, struggled with alcohol abuse, lacked stable housing, and was inconsistent in her visitation with the children, the trial court’s determination that a grant of permanent custody of Mother’s children to the agency was in the children’s best interest was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/25/2025
|
6/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2212 |
|
Hill v. Hikel
| C-240671 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT – FALSE ARREST – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTION DISTRESS – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION – CIV.R. 30 – CIV.R. 12(B)(6) – JUDICIAL BIAS: The trial court’s comments as to its previous dealings with plaintiff in unrelated criminal matters did not rise to the level of judicial bias. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s state false arrest claim or his malicious prosecution claims, as he filed this civil action beyond the one-year statute of limitations for false arrest, and he did not allege that defendants acted under “color of state law” in order to properly plead a malicious prosecution claim. The trial court did not err when it denied plaintiff’s motion to strike his deposition that was taken while he was incarcerated because the record shows that he had notice of defendants’ intent to take his deposition, and the record fails to show that he ever requested an attorney. The trial court did not err in granting defendants summary judgment prior to considering plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, because the record shows that the trial court entered a judgment on the motion to reconsider prior to entering a judgment on the motion for summary judgment. The trial court did not err in granting defendants summary judgment, because plaintiff did not show any disputes as to material facts via any evidence the trial court could consider, and the evidence that plaintiff did provide was merely speculative. | Nestor | Hamilton |
6/20/2025
|
6/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2161 |
|
Loyalty 360, Inc. v. Empirical Edge, Inc.
| C-240315 | DIRECTED VERDICT — INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL — ORAL CONTRACT — CONTRACT TERMS — BREACH OF CONTRACT — UNJUST ENRICHMENT: The trial court did not err by ruling in favor of defendant software developer on plaintiff owner’s claim for breach of the oral contract where the record supports the trial court’s determination that plaintiff owner failed to establish the assignment of certified employees to work on plaintiff owner’s website or plaintiff owner’s satisfaction with defendant software developer’s performance as terms of the contract. The trial court did not err in ruling in favor of defendant software developer on plaintiff owner’s claim for unjust enrichment because recovery under a claim for unjust enrichment is not available where the subject matter is governed by an enforceable contract. | Bock | Hamilton |
6/18/2025
|
6/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2134 |
|
In re J.B.
| C-250133, C-250141 | PERMANENT CUSTODY – R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) – DEPENDENT CHILD – R.C. 2151.414(E) – PLACEMENT – R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) – BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD: The juvenile court’s award of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where clear and convincing evidence established that mother and father continued to engage in patterns of domestic violence and went more than three months without visiting their daughter. | Bock | Hamilton |
6/18/2025
|
6/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2135 |
|
State v. Curry
| C-240404 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS — WAIVER — PROTECTIVE SWEEP — SEARCH WARRANT — INEVITABLE DISCOVERY: Defendant sufficiently challenged the constitutionality of the protective sweeps before the trial court and did not waive that challenge on appeal where the motion to suppress argued that the search conducted of the defendant’s residence was not permitted as a protective sweep, the State tangentially touched on the constitutionality of the protective sweeps during opening statements, a testifying officer was questioned about the protective sweeps by both defendant and the State, defendant argued during closing argument that the protective-sweep doctrine did not justify the warrantless search of his residence, defendant filed a brief in support of closing arguments challenging the constitutionality of the protective sweeps, and the trial court actually ruled on the constitutionality of the protective sweeps in its entry denying defendant’s motion to suppress. [But see DISSENT: Defendant waived the right to challenge the protective sweeps where his Franks motion to suppress was limited to challenging the veracity of the affidavit in support of the warrant, and defendant confirmed that the challenge was limited to the search-warrant affidavit.] The protective sweeps of defendant’s residence were conducted in violation of defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights where, at the time that the protective sweeps were conducted, defendant and a companion had been removed from the residence and arrested, the weapon used in the underlying offense that the police were investigating had been recovered, and the officers had no reasonable or articulable suspicion that the residence harbored any other person posing a danger to the officers or others. The State waived the argument that the illegally-obtained evidence would have been inevitably discovered by failing to raise that argument before the trial court. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/13/2025
|
6/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2083 |
|
In re M.T.
| C-240610, C-240611 | DISMISSAL — JUV.R. 9 — R.C. 2930.06: The juvenile court did not err in dismissing the complaints against the juvenile because the dismissals were based on the juvenile’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Juv.R. 9 in addition to the request for dismissal from the prosecuting witnesses. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/13/2025
|
6/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2084 |
|
Thomas v. Covrett
| C-240331 | SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY – R.C. 2744.03 – CIV.R. 12(C) –CIV.R. 7 – CIV.R. 10 – NOTICE PLEADING – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS: The trial court did not err in denying defendant police officer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of sovereign immunity where plaintiff sufficiently pled an exception to sovereign immunity. | Nestor | Hamilton |
6/11/2025
|
6/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2058 |
|
State v. Harper
| C-240476 | POSSESSION – TRAFFICKING – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT: Defendant’s conviction for trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the body-worn-camera video depicted defendant admitting ownership of the fentanyl and officers testified about the three bindles and four cellphones found near defendant. Defendant was not denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s improper comments during closing argument where defendant could not demonstrate that but for those comments the result of the trial would have been different. | Moore | Hamilton |
6/11/2025
|
6/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2059 |
|
State v. Antolini
| C-240543 | AGGRAVATED MENACING — SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM — JURY INSTRUCTION — PLAIN ERROR — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: Where defendant was charged with aggravated menacing, the trial court did not commit plain error in providing the jury with the definition of physical harm rather than serious physical harm where the trial court instructed the jury that it had to find that the victim believed defendant would cause her serious physical harm before finding defendant guilty of aggravated menacing, the State highlighted the difference between serious physical harm and physical harm during closing arguments, and the evidence supported a finding of a threat of serious physical harm. Where the evidence established that victim had a subjective belief of fear of serious physical harm, defendant’s conviction for aggravated menacing was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/11/2025
|
6/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2060 |
|
In re B.R.F.
| C-250143 | LEGAL CUSTODY — BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD: In a permanent-custody case, the juvenile court’s decision denying the grandmother’s petition for legal custody was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and therefore was not an abuse of discretion where the evidence showed that grandmother tested positive for illicit substances, and the child’s young age at the time of trial prevented self-protection. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
6/11/2025
|
6/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2061 |
|
State v. Brunson
| C-240244 | FELONIOUS ASSAULT – SELF DEFENSE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – MINIMUM SENTENCING – R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) – REAGAN TOKES – R.C. 2903.11: Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the State disproved one element of defendant’s self-defense claim. The trial court did not err by imposing more than the minimum sentence for defendant’s felonious-assault conviction where the trial court considered the appropriate statutory factors. The trial court erred by failing to advise defendant of the required Reagan Tokes notifications under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(C). | Nestor | Hamilton |
6/11/2025
|
6/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2057 |
|
Skiles v. Hamilton Cty. Auditor
| C-240254 | R.C. 5717.05 — BOARD OF REVISION — TAXATION — TRUE VALUE: In an appeal under R.C. 5717.05, appellants homeowners failed to show that the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining the true value of their home by not making findings as to their actual knowledge of certain defects in the home at the time of the sale where they failed to point to any authority to suggest that their lack of actual knowledge of the alleged defects would render their knowledge inadequate to uphold the 2022 sale where they bought their home as an arm’s-length transaction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellants homeowners failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the sale price they paid reflected the true value of the home where the evidence consisted of the cost of repairs and an appraised value reflective of the cost of repairs, with no evidence showing how the alleged defects actually decreased the value of the home as of the tax-lien date. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2015 |
|
State v. Barton
| C-240427 | FOURTH AMENDMENT — MOTION TO SUPPRESS — VEHICLE SEARCH — CANINE SNIFF: The trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from her vehicle because the drug-sniffing canine’s instinctive jump that briefly breached the vehicle’s window was not an unconstitutional search where the officer did not facilitate, command, or encourage the breach. [But see DISSENT: Because the dog entered the vehicle in an effort to do what it was trained to do — investigate to see if illegal drugs were present — a search occurred, and because the search lacked probable cause and no exceptions to the probable-cause requirement applied, the search was unconstitutional, and therefore, the motion to suppress should have been granted.] | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/28/2025
|
5/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1904 |
|
In re A.C.
| C-240172, C-240173, C-240174, C-240175, C-240176, C-240177, C-240178, C-240179, C-240180, C-240181, C-240233, C-240234, C-240235, C-240236, C-240306, C-240307, C-240308, C-240309 | FELONIOUS ASSAULT — DEADLY WEAPON — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — RESTITUTION — DISPOSITION: The juvenile’s adjudication for felonious assault was not supported by sufficient evidence where the State did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the child knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to the victim by means of a deadly weapon because the child’s actions and manner of use of the vehicle in rear-ending the victim’s car did not prove that child used the vehicle as a deadly weapon. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution to repair the damage to the victim’s vehicle because the record contains credible evidence that the damage to the dashboard was caused by the delinquent child while he possessed the vehicle. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in issuing dispositional orders because the dispositions were consistent with the statutory requirements and entered after the court considered the purposes of juvenile dispositions. | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1801 |
|
State v. Nerswick
| C-240304 | CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS – CRIM.R. 3 – OATHS – AFFIDAVITS – JURATS – CONFESSION OF ERROR: The criminal complaints against defendant were invalid under Crim.R. 3(A), and the municipal court therefore lacked jurisdiction to convict defendant, where body-worn-camera footage revealed that the officer who signed the jurats attached to the criminal complaints had not administered an oath to the complaining witness and had not witnessed the complainant apply his signature. | Crouse | Hamilton |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1802 |
|
Two Brothers Market, L.L.C. v. Singh
| C-240415 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – PUNITIVE DAMAGES – ATTORNEY’S FEES – BREACH OF CONTRACT – CONVERSION: The jury’s damages award was not unsupported by sufficient evidence, as there was evidence showing that defendants sellers of a market withheld plaintiff buyer’s deposit, inventory purchased, and purchase proceeds made during plaintiff’s interim management of the market after defendants refused to go through with the sale. The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on punitive damages because plaintiff claimed tortious conversion, and punitive damages may be awarded upon tort claims even if claimed alongside a breach of contract. The trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the award of attorney’s fees because an exception to the American Rule allows such an award upon the jury’s award of punitive damages. | Nestor | Hamilton |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1803 |
|
Littlepage v. Littlepage
| C-240423 | DIVORCE — FINAL DECREE — SEPARATION AGREEMENT — ADMINISTRATIVE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER — INHERITANCE — EQUITABLE DIVISION: The domestic relations court did not err by entering a final decree of divorce awarding wife money that she had inherited during the marriage where husband conceded that he was aware of the inheritance prior to the divorce and where husband failed to present evidence that wife’s inheritance was marital property subject to equitable division. The domestic relations court did not err by failing to address husband’s claim that wife sold his personal property in violation of the restraining order or the separation agreement where husband failed to engage in appropriate motion practice under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to file transcripts of the proceedings to demonstrate any alleged error. | Moore | Hamilton |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1804 |
|
State v. Gill
| C-240541 | SENTENCING — ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT: The trial court erred in imposing separate sentences on multiple groups of allied offenses of similar import, specifically trafficking in heroin and possession of heroin, trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine, trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound and possession of a fentanyl-related compound, and aggravated trafficking in drugs and aggravated possession of drugs. | Crouse | Hamilton |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1805 |
|
State v. Smith
| C-240445 | RECORD SEALING — EXPUNGEMENT — R.C. 2953.32(D)(1): The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s applications for record sealing and expungement when defendant’s applications failed to meet all seven requirements of R.C. 2953.32(D)(1) where, although defendant’s convictions were eligible for record sealing or expungement and the requisite amount of time had passed to allow for his applications to be considered, defendant failed to show that he had been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the trial court where defendant showed no remorse for his crimes; one of the victims objected; the State objected; the statements made by the victim who objected bolstered the State’s arguments; and the State’s interest in maintaining the records outweighed defendant’s interest in having his records sealed or expunged. | Moore | Hamilton |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1749 |
|
State v. Harris
| C-240529, C-240597 | APP.R. 12(D) — PREJUDICIAL ERROR — COURT COSTS — NUNC PRO TUNC — RES JUDICATA: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to correct the record where the correction defendant sought affected a legal judgment and not a clerical mistake, and where defendant did not suffer any prejudice from the lower court’s failure to issue a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry: any claimed errors in defendant’s sentence are barred by res judicata. | Bock | Hamilton |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1750 |
|
State ex rel. Frasure v. Wyoming Police Dept.
| C-240537 | WRIT — MANDAMUS — PUBLIC RECORDS ACT — MOOT — CIV.R. 12(B)(6): A trial court is permitted to rely on matters outside of the complaint to determine that an action is moot. Where all records requested in relator’s public-records requests had been received, the trial court did not err in determining that relator’s mandamus claim was moot. Where a writ claim is moot, the proper remedy is to deny the writ rather than dismiss the action. The trial court erred in considering materials outside of the complaint to deny relator’s requests for statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs. | Crouse | Hamilton |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1751 |
|
Fincher v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.
| C-240550 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — CIV.R. 56(C) — OBJECTIONS: The trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment where plaintiff did not respond to the motion or meet her evidentiary burden pursuant to Civ.R. 56(E). | Kinsley | Hamilton |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1752 |
|
State v. Covington
| C-240099 | BRADY VIOLATION – EVID.R. 404(B) – OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE – IDENTITY – RELEVANCE – CUMULATIVE ERROR – MANIFEST WEIGHT: The State did not commit a Brady violation despite twice failing to timely share evidence with defendant, because the late disclosure did not impede defendant from effectively using the evidence at trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted 56 anonymous text messages from more than 40 different phone numbers sent roughly 90 days before the date of the incident identified in the complaint, because the texts constituted other-acts evidence for the permitted purpose of identifying defendant as the sender of the texts “on or about” the date of the incident set forth in the complaint. Where there were no errors that deprived defendant of a fair trial, defendant failed to establish cumulative error. The defendant’s conviction for violating a protection order was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the record demonstrates that the text messages received by the victim were sent by defendant as the messages referenced aspects of the parties’ former romantic relationship, defendant’s nicknames for the victim, personal information about the victim that defendant would have known and explicit photographs of the victim allegedly taken by the defendant. | Moore | Hamilton |
5/14/2025
|
5/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1720 |
|
Kitzberger v. Kitzberger
| C-240264 | CHILD SUPPORT — R.C. 3119.04: Where the parties’ combined annual income exceeded the maximum annual income listed on the basic child-support schedule, the trial court abused its discretion in reducing obligor-mother’s child support obligation to $0 where the court failed to conduct an analysis under R.C. 3119.04. | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/14/2025
|
5/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1721 |
|
John M. Niehaus, Inc. v. TDGGC, L.L.C.
| C-240412 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — BREACH OF CONTRACT — SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT — AMENDED COMPLAINT: Where plaintiff company sued defendant company for breach of contract, alleging that defendant company had violated the parties’ settlement agreement providing that no more than 212 units were to be built on certain development property, the trial court did not err by granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment where there was no genuine issue of material fact: there was no dispute that future purchasers of the development property were bound to the terms of the settlement agreement and no dispute that defendant company had not built more than 212 units but instead had sold the development property to a third-party, who had then built over 212 units. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint where plaintiff’s new claims were based on an allegation that was found to not be supported in the record during the summary-judgment proceedings. | Moore | Hamilton |
5/14/2025
|
5/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1722 |
|
State v. Dod
| C-240647 | DISMISSAL — RIPENESS — COMMUNITY CONTROL: Defendant’s appeal is dismissed because the potential sentence on a future community-control violation is not ripe for review, as defendant has not yet been found to have violated his community control, and no prison term has been imposed. | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/14/2025
|
5/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1723 |
|
In re A.S.
| C-250045, C-250060 | R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) — R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) — PERMANENT CUSTODY — BEST INTEREST: The juvenile court’s determination that a remand of custody to mother was in the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record supports the juvenile court’s findings that mother was bonded and had positive interactions with the child, completed case-plan services, remedied the concerns for stable housing and domestic violence, and demonstrated a positive behavioral change. The juvenile court’s determination that permanent custody to the children services agency was not mandated under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record supports the juvenile court’s findings that the child could be returned to mother’s care where she completed case-plan services and remedied the concerns that caused the child’s removal. | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/14/2025
|
5/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1724 |
|
State v. Hall
| C-240317 | Police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk defendant where the officer had heard gunshots coming from a nearby apartment complex late at night, the officer was familiar with the complex from responding to frequent shots-fired calls, a passerby corroborated the officer’s suspicion as to the gunshots’ location of origin, defendant was one of only two men at that location when the officer arrived only two minutes later, defendant and the other man appeared to be a pair, and one of the two men had a bulge in his pocket consistent with a firearm. The statute prohibiting defendant from carrying a concealed handgun did not violate the Second Amendment, as our nation has a longstanding history and tradition of prohibiting some or all individuals from carrying concealed protected arms, at least where those individuals remain able to bear them openly for self-defense. Because the Ohio Supreme Court has already held that R.C. 2923.12 “does not unconstitutionally infringe the right to bear arms” under the Ohio Constitution in Klein v. Leis, 2003-Ohio-4779, ¶ 15, and because recent cases interpreting the United States Constitution have not altered Klein’s interpretation of the Ohio Constitution, the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss under Ohio Const., art. I, § 4. | Crouse | Hamilton |
5/8/2025
|
5/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1644 |
|
State v. Lucas
| C-240377 | GUILTY PLEA – SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION – CRIM.R. 11: The trial court erred in accepting defendant’s guilty pleas where it did not properly explain pursuant to Crim.R. 11 that defendant was waiving his right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. | Nestor | Hamilton |
5/8/2025
|
5/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1645 |
|
State v. Yoder
| C-240152 | RAPE — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — KIDNAPPING — ALLIED OFFENSES — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT —CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — DUE PROCESS — PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY — CRIM.R. 33: The State’s delay in indicting the defendant was constitutionally reasonable and did not violate his due process rights. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial where there was no evidence that defendant was incompetent at the time of trial. The trial court did not err in failing to merge rape and felonious assault convictions where the harms to the victim were separate. Defendant’s convictions for rape were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury believed the victim’s testimony. | Nestor | Hamilton |
5/7/2025
|
5/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1633 |
|
Stewart v. Stewart
| C-240350 | DIVORCE — PROPERTY — VALUATION — APP.R. 12(A)(2) — DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD — APP.R. 23: The trial court’s valuation of real property was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court had before it two competing expert appraisals and the trial court’s determinations regarding the valuation were supported by the record. The trial court did not err in utilizing the evidence presented at trial to value the vehicles at issue where no evidence of value was offered as of the marriage termination date and the evidence admitted at trial offered a value closer in time to the marriage termination date than the date of the initial property statements. Husband failed to meet his burden to show error on appeal where he challenges the trial court’s inequitable distribution award, that was based on extensive financial records admitted at trial, without pointing to or challenging any specific transaction from the financial records relied upon by the trial court when making this award. The trial court was not required to make a finding under R.C. 3105.171(E)(2) that distributing the parties’ traveler points in kind was impractical or burdensome where the trial court never made a distributive award as defined in R.C. 3105.171(A)(1). The appeal was not frivolous under App.R. 23, despite husband’s failure to cite any relevant authority, where husband provided citations to the record and the appeal was ultimately a fact-intensive appeal. | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/7/2025
|
5/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1635 |
|
State v. Holloway
| C-240453 | Operating a vehicle impaired ("OVI") — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — VENUE: Defendant’s conviction for operating a vehicle while impaired was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that defendant was excessively speeding, had a strong odor of alcohol on her person, stumbled while exiting from her vehicle, had glossy eyes, and was slurring her speech, and the officer testified that he believed she was “appreciably impaired,” and the factfinder found the officer’s testimony to be credible. The State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish venue where the officer testified that he worked for the Village of St. Bernard, he witnessed an initial traffic infraction in Cincinnati, which was outside of his jurisdiction, he stopped defendant in his jurisdiction, and he testified to specific streets in St. Bernard. | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/7/2025
|
5/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1637 |
|
State v. Tate
| C-240473 | POSTCONVICTION — RES JUDICATA: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing defendant’s petition for postconviction relief on the basis of res judicata where defendant’s two postconviction claims relied on evidence contained within the trial record and therefore could have been raised and litigated on direct appeal. | Crouse | Hamilton |
5/7/2025
|
5/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1638 |
|
In re C/S Children
| C-250018, C-250026, C-250041 | PERMANENT CUSTODY – BEST INTEREST – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) – 12-OF-22 MONTHS – R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d) – LEGALLY SECURE PLACEMENT – R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e) – PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT : The juvenile court did not err when it awarded permanent custody of the minor children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”), given that Mother, an out-of-state resident, lacked approval under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC”). Even if Mother had ICPC approval, the juvenile court did not err in concluding that Mother was not a legally secure placement for the children, as evidenced by Mother’s ongoing relationship with a partner who in the past had allegedly abused her. The juvenile court did not err by refusing to order HCJFS to make a fourth ICPC referral for Mother when such a referral is not mandated by law and is left to the discretion of HCJFS. [But see DISSENT: Ohio’s ICPC statute, as applied to Mother, failed to provide constitutionally-sufficient due process where it (1) did not afford Mother a meaningful opportunity to present evidence that supported the return of her children; (2) failed to secure the right to judicial review of an adverse ICPC determination in Kentucky; (3) failed to protect the right to counsel in Kentucky; and (4) vested the judicial determination of the children’s disposition in the unchecked discretion of an out-of-state executive agency, thereby violating the separation of powers principle.] | Moore | Hamilton |
5/7/2025
|
5/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1639 |
|