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 118 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. McCully 107888Conviction; sentence; jury; instruction; rule; mandatory; harmless error; prejudice; substantial right; burden; written; audio; copy. The trial court committed reversible error by failing to provide the jury with either a written or record copy of its final instructions for reference during deliberations pursuant to Crim.R. 30(A).E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-659
Keybank Natl. Assn. v. Thalman 108123Heirs; trusts; split; distributions; fiduciary duty; attorney fees; counterclaims; breached; dividing; declaratory judgment; investment account; breach of trust; liquidation; recombined; damages; summary judgment; interest; punitive; law of the case; mandate rule. The decision in a prior appeal of the case, that the trustee had divided the trust into two separate trusts for the separate benefit of the two beneficiaries pursuant to R.C. 5804.17, that plaintiff’s counterclaims were perfunctory, and that the parties were to bear their own attorney fees was the law of the case and was binding on all of the parties. The mandate of the prior appeal left nothing for the trial court to consider further on remand.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-660
State v. Debardeleben 108277R.C. 2903.041, reckless homicide, R.C. 2903.02(B), felony murder, R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), felonious assault, R.C. 2919.22(A), R.C. 2919.22(B)(1), and R.C. 2919.22(B)(2), endangering children, sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight of the evidence, mistrial, cumulative errors, and prosecutorial misconduct. Appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the minor decedent was in the care, custody, and control of appellant at the time the fatal injuries were suffered. The trial court’s refusal to declare a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion where the allegedly prejudicial outburst by spectators at the close of the day’s proceedings was immediately addressed by the trial court and the trial court issued a corrective instructive promptly after the jury was seated the next morning. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor’s conduct deprived appellant of a fair trial. Cumulative error does not apply where the appellant’s arguments do not constitute error.Laster MaysCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-661
State v. Heise 108286 & 108776Defect; indictment; statute; void; conduct; plea; waive; knowing; intelligent; voluntary; withdraw; ineffective; deficient; counsel; prejudice; hearing; abuse of discretion; timeliness; affidavit. Appellant’s arguments concerning the sufficiency of his indictment rely on a misinterpretation of the criminal statute governing his conduct. Defendant has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the existence of a manifest injustice that warrants the withdrawal of his guilty plea.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-662
State v. Hines 108326Motion to withdraw guilty plea; presentence; abuse of discretion. The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant, after pleading guilty, immediately took steps to find new counsel and withdraw his plea.KilbaneCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-663
State v. Othberg 108351Anders brief, motion to withdraw, presentence-investigation report, Crim.R. 32.2, R.C. 2947.06. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw filed in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), is granted and the appeal is dismissed after a thorough review of the record fails to reveal any meritorious arguments for appeal. The trial court’s failure to order a presentence-investigation report is not error. A presentence report is not required where the appellant is not eligible for probation or community control sanctions.Laster MaysCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-664
State v. Barnes 108360Felony sentences. Defendant's five-year prison sentence is not contrary to law, and the court considered the proper statutory factors.BlackmonCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-665
State v. Cowan 108394Motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial; unavoidable delay; public records request. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial without a hearing. The documents submitted by appellant did not on their face support appellant’s claim that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the purported new evidence.SheehanCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-666
State v. Thomas 108408Jointly recommended sentence, jurisdiction, authorized by law, mandatory sentencing provisions. Appellant-defendant argued that his sentence was contrary to law. Defendant had agreed upon a sentencing recommendation; because his sentence was within the recommended range and not contrary to law, we dismissed the appeal.KilbaneCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-667
State v. Hines 108457R.C. 2929.34(B)(3)(d); prison; R.C. 2903.06; aggravated vehicular homicide; R.C. 2901.01(A)(9); R.C. 2929.15; community control; technical violation. The trial court erred in concluding that defendant who committed a fifth-degree felony was ineligible for confinement at a Targeted Community Alternative to Prison, under R.C. 2929.34, due to his prior aggravated vehicular homicide conviction, because aggravated vehicular homicide is not a disqualifying offense of violence under R.C. 2901.01(A)(9); where defendant was convicted of a fifth-degree felony and sentenced to community control, the trial court erred in imposing a one-year term for community control violation; OVI was a “technical” violation of community control - it was a new offense that was not a felony, so under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i), it was subject to the 90-day limit on prison terms for community control violations. BlackmonCuyahoga 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 2020-Ohio-668