|
|
State v. Fusco
| 115029 | Vehicular assault; failure to comply; motorcycle street takeover; Cleveland Police serious physical harm; guilty plea; consecutive sentences; failure-to-comply convictions; bond violations; Real Time Crime Camera video; body-camera footage; victim-impact statement; ineffective assistance of counsel; sentencing video context; Strickland standard; Anders brief. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to provide additional context for the video played at sentencing because the trial court was statutorily permitted to consider all relevant information, including video evidence at sentencing, the footage directly related to the elements of the offenses, and, in light of appellant’s history of failure-to-comply convictions and his bond violations, there was no reasonable probability that any further explanation would have altered the consecutive sentencing structure mandated by R.C. 2921.331(D); accordingly, the sole potential assignment of error was overruled, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/25/2026
|
6/25/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2404 |
|
State v. Smith
| 115403 | Joinder; motion to sever; Crim.R. 8; Crim.R. 14; prejudice; abuse of discretion; Confrontation Clause; Bruton v. United States; App.R. 16; App.R. 12; jury instructions; invited error; restitution; theft in office; R.C. 2921.41(C)(2)(a)(ii). Appellant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the denial of his motion to sever trial from his codefendant, and his rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated. The trial court did not err in declining to exclude three of the State’s exhibits because appellant failed to show that they lacked foundation. Because appellant did not comply with App.R. 12(A)(2) and 16(A)(7), the court declined to review the additional two claimed errors in his second assignment of error. Appellant invited the claimed error in the jury instructions because his trial counsel suggested the language that appellant now says was improper. Finally, the court did not err in ordering restitution pursuant to R.C. 2921.41(C)(2)(a)(ii). | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
6/25/2026
|
6/25/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2405 |
|
S. Euclid v. Freeman
| 115442 | Sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; failure to stop after accident; improper passing; plain error; hearsay; Evid.R. 803(6); lay witness; expert witness; Evid.R. 701; Evid.R. 702; discovery violation; record on appeal. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support appellant’s convictions for failure to stop after an accident and improper passing. Appellant’s convictions for failure to stop after an accident and improper passing were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court erred in allowing the City to introduce hearsay evidence in the form of a repair estimate without first having the author of that estimate testify. However, the appellant did not object to the introduction of the repair estimate on hearsay grounds and therefore waived all but plain error and failed to demonstrate that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the impermissible hearsay not been introduced. The trial court did not err in allowing a law enforcement officer from providing lay witness opinion testimony that was based on his own observations and conclusions. The record on appeal was insufficient to determine whether appellant was not provided with alleged photographs and images within the discovery deadline. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
6/25/2026
|
6/25/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2406 |
|
Trevis v. Shelbourne CP, L.L.C.
| 115467 | Summary judgment; negligence. The trial court did not err when it granted the appellees’ motion for summary judgment because darkness is an open and obvious condition that should not be disregarded. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/25/2026
|
6/25/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2407 |
|
State v. Canales
| 115519 | Crim.R. 29 motion; incompetent witness. The trial court did not err when it denied the appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion because the evidence was sufficient to convict. The trial court did not err when it allowed a juvenile witness to testify because the witness proved to be competent. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/25/2026
|
6/25/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2408 |
|