|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Fails
| 2024-CA-70 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence alleged hearsay statements contained in the police officer’s cruiser video and body-worn video. Appellant’s conviction for the underlying misdemeanor offense was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State failed to present sufficient evidence that appellant’s driving caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property, which precluded a conviction for the third-degree felony version of the underlying offense. Although the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing arguments, absent the improper conduct, there was overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt for the underlying misdemeanor conviction such that the error did not amount to plain error. Plain error is not found with the trial court’s curative instructions provided during closing argument. No cumulative error denied appellant the right to a fair trial. Judgment affirmed in part as modified, reversed in part, and remanded. | Lewis | Clark |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4680 |
|
State v. Hopkins
| 2024-CA-59 | Appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to: (1) file a motion to suppress; (2) subpoena the victim’s cell phone records; (3) obtain a firearms and ballistics expert; (4) hire an expert witness in the field of eye witness identification; (5) subpoena defense witnesses; (6) object to the State indicating that appellant was under a weapons disability; (7) file a motion in limine to exclude a certain witness’s testimony; (8) object to testimony describing the way in which a detective observed a firearm in appellant’s pants pocket; or (9) file a motion to dismiss his case on statutory speedy-trial grounds. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s mid-trial requests to hire new counsel and continue trial. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4681 |
|
State v. Howard
| 2025-CA-4 | Appellant appealed from the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction discovery. Because that judgment is not a final appealable order, this court lacks jurisdiction to review it on appeal. Appeal dismissed. | Hanseman | Greene |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4682 |
|
Arnett v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati
| 30452 | The trial court properly granted summary judgment for appellees in this negligence case because under the “no-duty winter rule,” they had no duty to warn appellant of potential ice and snow in the parking lot where he slipped and fell on ice. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4679 |
|
In re Furrey v. Furrey
| 30381 | The trial court abused its discretion in deeming appellee’s requests for admission admitted and denying appellants’ request for the court to permit their untimely response. Consequently, the court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee based on appellants’ admissions. Discussion of statute of limitations in summary judgment decision was dicta. Judgment reversed and case remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4683 |
|
State v. Simpson
| 30420 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s application for postconviction DNA testing under the authority of R.C. 2953.74 where the requested DNA testing would not be outcome determinative and where appellant’s identity as one of the victim’s assailants was not an issue during trial. The trial court also did not err by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s application, as R.C. 2953.73(D) specifically provides that such a hearing is not required. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4684 |
|
Woodmansee v. Woodmansee
| 30446 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the best interests of the minor child to grant legal custody to mother. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that mother was not voluntarily underemployed where father did not provide any evidence that mother voluntarily left her previous, higher-paying job or that other higher-paying jobs were available to mother that she was qualified for but did not consider. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4685 |
|
State v. Dumas
| 30406 | Appellant’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error in allowing the police officer to refresh his recollection. Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the officer’s use of his police report to refresh his recollection where no prejudice was established. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4602 |
|
SRM Materials, L.L.C. v. German Twp.
| 30419 | Under Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2020-Ohio-845, appellee-board of zoning appeals erred in relying on the general standards of its township zoning resolution to deny appellant’s conditional use application to engage in mining activity. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4605 |
|
State v. Hayes
| 2024-CA-71 | Appellant’s speedy-trial rights were not violated. The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. The trial court did not err by imposing a mandatory sentence for appellant’s third-degree felony possession of cocaine offense or by not merging the offense with appellant’s fifth-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs offense. Appellant’s claims that his drug possession convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence based on a purportedly unclear chain of custody for the drugs lack merit. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4603 |
|
State v. Davis
| 2025-CA-20 | Following a bench trial, appellant was convicted of several misdemeanor offenses. Without a transcript of the trial and sentencing hearing, there is no basis to conclude that appellant’s due process rights were violated, that the verdicts were not supported by sufficient evidence, or that any sentencing errors were committed. Judgments affirmed. | Tucker | Miami |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4601 |
|
State v. Bayman
| 2023-CA-31 | Conceded error. In this reopened appeal, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress where the deputy lacked probable cause to search appellant for contraband based solely on a K-9 alert while appellant was seated as a passenger in a vehicle. Appellant’s original counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise the issue. Prior appellate judgment vacated. Trial court judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Darke |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4600 |
|
State v. Shanks
| 2024-CA-32 | Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law because it was within the statutory range, and the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4604 |
|
State v. Vargas
| 2025-CA-1 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The court correctly concluded that appellant’s initial encounter with a police officer was consensual and that during the interaction the officer saw illegal drugs on appellant’s person in plain view. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
9/26/2025
|
9/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4482 |
|
State v. Kemper
| 2025-CA-10 | The record did not support the trial court’s determination that appellant had requested a pretrial conference at his arraignment, so it was not a proper basis to toll speedy-trial time. Appellee made no alternative tolling argument before the trial court and cannot introduce on appeal any additional reason speedy-trial time should have been tolled. Appellant was entitled to dismissal of the charge against him on speedy-trial grounds. Judgment vacated. | Tucker | Miami |
9/26/2025
|
9/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4481 |
|
Marshall v. Marshall
| 30537 | The trial court did not err in terminating shared parenting at both parties’ request and designating appellee as the residential parent and sole legal custodian of their children with appellant receiving standard parenting time. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/19/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4392 |
|
McManus v. Ingram
| 30416 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a default judgment in favor of the county treasurer on the treasurer’s complaint for foreclosure of delinquent real estate taxes against appellant. Appellant was properly served and failed to answer, appear, or defend. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
9/19/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4393 |
|
State v. Rankin
| 30330 | Following appellant’s admission to violating community control by absconding, the trial court did not infringe on her due process rights by revoking community control without requiring the State to present evidence of the other violations alleged in her notice of community control revocation. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/19/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4395 |
|
In re M.B.E.
| 2025-CA-2 | The juvenile court erred in denying appellant’s motion to review juvenile sex offender classification under R.C. 2152.85(A)(1). At the time that appellant filed his motion, the court had not yet held the mandatory completion-of-disposition hearing under R.C. 2152.84. Absent the completion-of-disposition hearing, the court lacked authority to consider appellant’s motion, and the motion should have been dismissed as premature. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Greene |
9/19/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4391 |
|
Monroe v. Richards
| 2025-CA-23 | Appellee was entitled to summary judgment in this legal malpractice case because appellant, as a matter of law, had not sustained any damages as a result of appellee’s alleged breach of the duty of professional representation. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
9/18/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4394 |
|
State v. Brooks
| 2024-CA-36 | The trial court was not obligated to tell appellant that a guilty plea would waive his ability to challenge its suppression ruling. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on appellant’s attorney advising him to plead guilty rather than no contest. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3292 |
|
State v. McMahon
| 2025-CA-7 | The trial court was not required to inform appellant that no one could comment on his silence if he chose to go forward with a trial and did not testify. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 by informing appellant of the constitutional rights he was waiving by entering his guilty pleas, including the right against self-incrimination. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3295 |
|
State v. Scott
| 2025-CA-4 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s successive petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23, as the matters raised in the petition had been previously litigated and were barred by res judicata. Although the trial court did not rule on appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial, any error was harmless, as the claims raised in the motion were also barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3296 |
|
In re J.P.
| 30437 | The trial court’s conclusion that appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily agreed to appellee obtaining legal custody of the parties’ minor child was supported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3293 |
|
State v. Jones
| 30333 | Jury’s verdicts finding appellant guilty of murder, felonious assault, and related firearm specifications and consequent rejection of appellant’s self-defense claim were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to enter a nolle prosequi for a reckless homicide charge. Appellant was not denied a fair trial by the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. The trial court did not deny appellant his right to a public trial by excluding his father from the courtroom for a portion of one day. The trial court did not err in allowing the State to present a witness’s prior consistent statement during redirect examination. Absent any error by the trial court, cumulative error doctrine was inapplicable to appellant’s convictions. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3294 |
|
State v. Cox
| 30356 | Appellant’s felonious assault convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant admitted to shooting the victim in the face, the victim suffered extensive injuries, and the evidence revealed appellant did not have a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the time of the shooting. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3163 |
|
In re Adoption of W.M.J.
| 30444 | The probate court properly exercised jurisdiction over the petition for adoption filed by appellee, the spouse of an active-duty military service member. In determining whether a petitioner for adoption “resides” in the probate court’s jurisdiction, as required by R.C. 3107.04, a probate court should consider domicile if the petitioner, or the petitioner’s spouse, is in active military service when the petition is filed. Sufficient evidence supported the probate court’s determination that appellee was domiciled in Montgomery County. Judgments affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3166 |
|
State v. Nalls
| 30414 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s pro se amended petition for postconviction relief based on untimeliness. The trial court also did not err in overruling motions for voluntary recusal, to consolidate the present case with an unrelated 1989 rape case, for summary judgment on the untimely petition for postconviction relief, and for judicial notice related to the untimely petition. The trial court did err, however, in overruling without explanation appellant’s two motions to vacate court costs. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3168 |
|
State v. Devore
| 2025-CA-7 | Appellant’s sentences were contrary to law because the trial court failed to provide a notification at sentencing that was required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(iii). Judgments affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing in accordance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). | Lewis | Champaign |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3164 |
|
State v. Kidd
| 2025-CA-3 | Appellant’s aggregate sentence of ten years for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (“OVI”) with a repeat OVI offender specification was not contrary to law. The court properly considered the statutory guidelines and factors, and it did not err in considering information in the presentence investigation report that a petition for a protection order was pending against appellant. Appellant mischaracterizes the record in asserting that the court treated his alcoholism as “willful disobedience”; the trial court correctly noted appellant’s numerous failed efforts at rehabilitation and his ongoing inability to control his alcohol consumption. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3167 |
|
State v. Fleming
| 2024-CA-38 | The trial court erred in concluding that, after a subpoenaed witness failed to appear at trial, a recorded statement that the witness made to a detective was admissible under the Evid.R. 804(B)(6) forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule. Therefore, appellant’s constitutional right to confront the witness was violated. The trial court did not err by allowing admission of appellant’s cell phone records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Tucker | Clark |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3165 |
|
State v. Weaver
| 2025-CA-5 | The trial court’s failure to advise appellant of his rights at his initial appearance and plea hearing as required under Crim.R. 5(C) and 10(C) rendered his guilty plea less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Darke |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3094 |
|
Janson v. Janson
| 2025-CA-3 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found appellant in contempt for failing to maintain a life insurance policy with appellee, appellant’s ex-wife, as the beneficiary. The terms of the parties’ separation agreement, including appellee’s relinquishment of her right to appellant’s military survivor benefits, reveal no time limit to appellant’s obligation to maintain the policy until the death of one of the parties. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3092 |
|
In re A.S.
| 30413 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision on the legal custody of her children. Appellant’s objections were untimely, and she had not requested an extension or provided any reason for the delay. Trial counsel’s performance was not ineffective because, although the failure to timely object to the magistrate’s decision was deficient, it was not reasonably probable that a proper objection would have altered the court’s custody decision. Judgments affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3090 |
|
In re Bailey
| 30427 | The record does not contain a written transcript of a hearing before a magistrate related to appellant’s involuntary commitment. The limited record before us does not affirmatively demonstrate that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. Without a complete record, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3091 |
|
Stargell v. FST Express Inc.
| 30417 | Appellant, proceeding pro se, did not file a proper brief in accordance with App.R. 16(A). Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3093 |
|
Brazie v. State Bd. of Edn.
| 30439 | Civ.R. 60(B) is not applicable in an administrative appeal before a common pleas court. The trial court correctly overruled appellant’s “motion to re-open” the dismissal of his administrative appeal for failure to prosecute. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3000 |
|
Easter v. Sobol
| 30351 | The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against the appellants because their wrongful death claim was barred by collateral estoppel and their claim for negligent hiring, training, or supervision was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3004 |
|
In re Adoption of E.G.B.
| 30432 & 30433 | The probate court’s determination that appellant’s consent to the adoption of her two children was not required was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3005 |
|
Sumner v. Roofing Co.
| 30441 | The trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA") claims against appellee, an officer and co-owner of a roofing company, for failure to state a claim. Appellant alleged that appellee had visited her property on behalf of the roofing company and had engaged in numerous acts, including an inspection, preparation of an estimate, responding to her complaints about the quality of the workmanship, and offering to remediate deficiencies at no cost, but eventually disappeared without providing the promised remediation. A corporate officer can be held individually liable for violations of the CSPA if he actively participated in or directed the actions that led to the violations, even if he did not actually participate in the construction work. Appellant’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim against appellee under the CSPA. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3006 |
|
Trotwood v. Thomas
| 30428 | Appellant may not challenge on appeal the terms of an agreed order. Moreover, his brief does not identify an assignment of error for us to review. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3007 |
|
Absolute Resolutions Invests., L.L.C. v. Moran
| 2025-CA-1 | In an action on account, appellee submitted proper documentary evidence to support its motion for summary judgment, and appellant did not respond with any Civ.R. 56(C) evidence from which the court could have found that appellant did not own the account or did not owe the amount due. The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion to compel arbitration where, before seeking arbitration, she had engaged in defending appellee’s claim for more than eight months and had invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court by asserting her own counterclaims, which were not subject to the arbitration provision. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2999 |
|
C.K.R.M. v. K.O.H.
| 2025-CA-18 | The trial court did not err in rejecting appellant’s filing, which challenged the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s final civil stalking protection order ("CSPO"). If construed as a motion to terminate and vacate the CSPO, appellant did not provide a valid basis for the motion. If construed as objections and deemed timely due to lack of service, appellant failed to file a transcript to support his objections, and we would presume the regularity of the trial court’s proceedings. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3001 |
|
State v. Crowley
| 2024-CA-66 & 2024-CA-76 | Appellant’s conviction for tampering with evidence was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury could have reasonably concluded that he concealed the murder weapon behind a safe in the trunk of his car to prevent its availability as evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay the minimum mandatory fine of $5,000 for his third-degree felony offense of trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound. Judgments affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3002 |
|
State v. Duncan
| 2025-CA-5 & 2025-CA-6 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s post-conviction motions, which were based on the faulty premise that the sentences imposed by the trial court differed from the sentences contemplated by the plea agreement. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3003 |
|
State v. Cunningham
| 2024-CA-81 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant’s request for new appointed counsel on the day of trial. Appellant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court did not err by imposing a maximum prison sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2894 |
|
State v. Bowman
| 2025-CA-9 | The trial court properly denied appellant’s application for postconviction DNA testing, although its reasoning was flawed. Any exclusion results would not have been outcome determinative because ample non-DNA evidence indicated appellant had murdered his wife. The court followed the statute by giving a reason for denying the application. The fact that the trial court did not give the State a chance to respond to the application before entering its decision did not prejudice appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Darke |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2893 |
|
State v. Rutter
| 2025-CA-7 | Appellant appealed from the imposition of a six-month jail sentence for violating his community control for nonsupport of dependents. Because he has completely served that jail sentence and his community control has been terminated, his appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed. | Epley | Miami |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2899 |
|
Huber v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
| 30379 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming an administrative decision that appellant had abandoned his state hearing on the denial of Medicaid benefits. Appellant did not appear for a hearing as scheduled and did not establish good cause for his failure. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2895 |
|
In re N.R.
| 30348; 30354 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting legal custody of the child to Father. The court reviewed the applicable statutory factors and found that custody to Father was in the child’s best interest. The trial court’s denial of children services’ motion for permanent custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient evidence, as the agency failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody with the agency was in the child’s best interest. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2896 |
|