|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
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 |
|
State v. Godfrey
| C-240140, C-240154 | PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT — CONFRONTATION CLAUSE — HEARSAY — SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — AGGRAVATED MURDER — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — SEVERANCE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — OTHER FIREARMS — PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE — EVID.R. 403(A) — EIGHTH AMENDMENT — CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT — CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES — FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER — ONE DOCUMENT RULE — MARSY’S LAW — RESTITUTION: The prosecutors did not engage in misconduct by describing defendant as a “hired assassin” and “contract killer” during opening statements and closing arguments where the terms reflected the State’s theory of the case that defendant was paid to kill people and were not inserted merely to inflame the jury. Defendant’s right of confrontation was not infringed by the detectives’ recitation of text messages in open court despite the participants in the messages not being called to testify because the contents of the messages were nontestimonial. The recitation of text messages in open court did not violate the prohibitions against hearsay where the contents were admissible either as admissions by a party-opponent, statements by a coconspirator, or contextual statements. Defendant’s convictions for aggravated murder, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability were supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where direct and circumstantial evidence established defendant’s identity as a complicitor in the first shooting and as a direct participant in the second shooting which took place two days later. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the charges involving two different shooting incidents where, despite the large number of witnesses and voluminous exhibits, the evidence pertaining to each incident was “simple and direct” in that there were two separate shootings, on two different dates, at two different locations, involving different victims, and the common nucleus was defendant. Defendant did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel where his attorneys refrained from cross-examining witnesses who either testified in a very limited capacity or whose ability to convey favorable information was purely speculative and where said omissions did not yield a complete failure to mount a meaningful defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting selfie video footage showing defendant wielding an assault rifle and a pistol where the footage demonstrated defendant’s familiarity with and access to the types of firearms used in one of the shootings. The sentences imposed by the trial court did not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment where the individual terms fell within the authorized statutory ranges and the trial court made the requisite consecutive sentence findings which were supported by the record. Reversal of the sentences was not required where the trial court failed to order the terms on the firearm specifications to run consecutively and prior to the remainder of the sentence because that issue was moot in view of the fact that defendant was sentenced to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole. The trial court did not err in failing to incorporate defendant’s sentences on separate charges to which he pled guilty into the entry for the instant charges because those counts were severed and each entry comprised a final, appealable order in its own right. The trial court erred in ruling it was foreclosed from ordering restitution to one of the victims by virtue of defendant’s sentence to life in prison. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
5/2/2025
|
5/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1575 |
|
State v. Perkins
| C-240428 | TELECOMMUNICATIONS HARASSMENT — TEXT MESSAGE — AUTHENTICATION — PLAIN ERROR — SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for telecommunications harassment was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence: The admission of the text messages that served as the basis for the charge did not constitute plain error and the evidence showed that defendant sent the harassing and threatening text messages to the victim. | Nestor | Hamilton |
5/2/2025
|
5/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1576 |
|
Edelstein v. Edelstein
| C-240044, C-240127 | CUSTODY – DIVORCE – BEST INTEREST – EVIDENCE – VISITATION – JURISDICTION – OATH ADMINISTRATION – VENUE – JUDICIAL NOTICE – MARITAL ESTATE – CONTEMPT – RECORDS ACCESS – IN-CAMERA INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Father sole custody of the parties’ minor child where the record demonstrated that Mother engaged in emotionally abusive behavior that alienated the minor child from the rest of his family. The trial court did not err when it admitted a custodial-evaluation report into evidence, because in the absence of a viable basis for exclusion, one parties’ refusal to participate in the investigative and compilation stage does not render a report inadmissible. The trial court did not err when it authorized its staff attorney to administer oaths to testifying witnesses outside of the courtroom where the staff attorney then stated on the record that each witness had been sworn-in and was testifying under oath. The trial court did not err when it found that Hamilton County, Ohio, was the proper venue for the parties’ divorce proceedings where all material facts giving rise to Father’s complaint for divorce arose in Hamilton County. The trial court did not err when it took judicial notice of a jury’s journalized verdict form in a federal lawsuit to which Mother was a party. The trial court erred in part when it divided the parties’ marital assets where the court’s final order concerning the conveyance of the automobiles bought during the marriage was not only unsupported by competent, credible evidence but directly contrary to the court’s findings and the evidence presented at trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it restricted Mother’s access to the minor child’s records where it found that a restriction was necessary to further the child’s best interest. | Moore | Hamilton |
4/30/2025
|
4/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1514 |
|
State v. Nichols
| C-240364 | ASSAULT — SELF DEFENSE — AT FAULT: Defendant’s conviction for misdemeanor assault must be reversed because the State failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not at fault in creating the affray where surveillance footage showed that defendant was not at fault as it corroborated defendant’s testimony that she attempted to diffuse the situation as a peacekeeper when she was brought into the affray. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/30/2025
|
4/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1515 |
|
State v. Thomas
| C-240461 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS – AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION – OFFICER SAFETY – BRUEN – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle during a traffic stop where officers reasonably searched defendant’s car to protect officer safety after he was removed from the vehicle based on a suspected firearm. Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to dismiss firearm charges under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), where defendant argued it was merely possible, not probable, that such a motion would have changed the outcome of his case. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
4/30/2025
|
4/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1516 |
|
In re D. Children
| C-240682, C-250042 | PARENTAL TERMINATION – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD: The juvenile court’s judgment remanding custody of the minor children to mother was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that she remedied the agency’s initial concerns when the children were removed from her home and that it was in the children’s best interest to return to mother’s custody. | Nestor | Hamilton |
4/30/2025
|
4/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1517 |
|
In re D.L.
| C-240560, C-240561, C-240562 | CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON — IMPROPER HANDLING OF A FIREARM IN A MOTOR VEHICLE — RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — POSSESSION — OBJECTIONS — MAGISTRATE: The trial court’s finding that the juvenile constructively possessed a firearm recovered in a vehicle that the juvenile was driving was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the juvenile was the sole occupant of the vehicle, the firearm was inside a bag located directly underneath the driver’s seat of the vehicle, the strap of the bag containing the firearm was hanging out from under the seat, and the juvenile, prior to the traffic stop being initiated, engaged in what the arresting officer believed to be evasive driving behavior. The juvenile’s adjudication for receiving stolen property was not supported by sufficient evidence where the State failed to adduce any evidence that the firearm that was the subject of the charge was stolen. | Crouse | Hamilton |
4/30/2025
|
4/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1519 |
|
Eastlawn Properties, L.L.C. v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.
| C-240277 | INSURANCE — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — LIMITATIONS PERIOD — CONTRACTS — WAIVER— BAD FAITH — BREACH OF CONTRACT — PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL — NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION — FRAUD — MOTION TO DISMISS — EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL: Where insured’s claim for breach of contract was barred by the two-year suit-limitation period in the insurance policy, and where insurer did not waive the limitation provision, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to insurer on the claim. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to insurer on insured’s claim for bad faith in the handling and processing of insured’s claim under the policy where the record contained genuine issues of material fact as to whether there was a reasonable justification for the insurer’s repeated failure to respond to the insured, its delay in issuing payment, and its request for additional documentation regarding code upgrades to the insured property. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to insurer on insured’s claim that insurer had breached the contract it had with insured’s restoration company where the record established that no contract was formed between insurer and the restoration company. Where insurer never promised to pay insured’s restoration company a specific amount for supplemental repairs, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to insurer on the claim for promissory estoppel. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to insurer on claims for negligent misrepresentation and fraud where insurer did not provide false and misleading information or omit any material facts that insured relied on and that resulted in injury or pecuniary loss to insured. Because the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are not available to extend the terms of an insurance policy, the trial court did not err in dismissing insured’s claim for estoppel/waiver of the insurance policy’s code upgrade coverage limitation. | Crouse | Hamilton |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1475 |
|
State v. Donovan
| C-240437 | SELF-DEFENSE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: The trial court’s finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because defendant did not have a bona fide belief of imminent death or great bodily harm and he chose to reengage with the victim, creating the situation that led to the affray. The trial court did not improperly consider evidence that defendant was safe within his home before he chose to reengage with the victim, as it demonstrated who was at fault in creating the situation. | Nestor | Hamilton |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1476 |
|
State v. Marshall
| C-230594, C-230595 | JUDICIAL RELEASE — COMMUNITY CONTROL: The trial court did not err under R.C. 2929.20(K) in revoking defendant’s community control sanctions and reimposing the remainder of defendant’s original prison term following judicial release when, at the time of judicial release, the trial court expressly reserved the right to reimpose a prison term upon defendant if he violated community control. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
4/23/2025
|
4/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1426 |
|
Ho v. Co
| C-240338 | CONTEMPT — POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST — SERVICE — VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR: In a divorce case, any deficiency in service of the trial court’s entry clarifying appellee-father’s interest award did not render that order void, and the deficiency was harmless where the order failed to set a deadline for payment of an interest award. In a divorce case, the trial court did not err when its interest award included interest that accrued while matters were stayed during the pendency of an appeal. In a divorce case, appellant-mother’s vexatious-litigator status did not make the proceedings on appellee-father’s motions for postjudgment interest and contempt fundamentally unfair because that status did not impede her ability to oppose those motions in responsive filings. In a divorce case, appellant-mother’s failure to file transcripts of hearings on appellee-father’s motions to clarify his interest award and for contempt prevented the appeals court from reaching the merits of appellant-mother’s substantive arguments. [But see DISSENT: The appeal is moot based on appellant-mother’s voluntary satisfaction of the purge condition during the pendency of the appeal.] | Bock | Hamilton |
4/23/2025
|
4/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1427 |
|
Zhang v. Zheng
| C-240430 | CONTRACTS – FRAUD – SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ summary judgment motion on plaintiff’s claim for fraud in the execution of a document, which transferred plaintiff’s interest in defendant limited liability company to defendant member of the limited liability company, where plaintiff, by his own deposition testimony, could not prove any fraud with respect to the execution of the document or the transfer of his interest. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/23/2025
|
4/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1428 |
|
In re A.B.
| C-240478, C-240479, C-240480, C-240481, C-240482, C-240483, C-240484, C-240485, C-240486, C-240487, C-240488, C-240489 | ALLIED OFFENSES — INDUCING PANIC: The juvenile court did not err by imposing separate sentences for the juvenile’s 12 adjudications for inducing panic where the offenses were not allied offenses of similar import because each offense targeted a different victim: although the juvenile intended to carry out his murderous plan at one public place, his admitted intent was to kill, rape, or kidnap only the 12 named individuals on his “hit list,” and those individuals were treated as victims by the parties and the court throughout the proceedings. | Moore | Hamilton |
4/23/2025
|
4/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1429 |
|
In re J. Children
| C-250027, C-250053 | PERMANENT CUSTODY — BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD: The juvenile court’s award of permanent custody of three children 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 mother and father had not been consistent in their progress with case-plan services, nor did parents demonstrate an ability to provide a legally-secure permanent placement that would enable the children to safely return to their care, particularly with regard to substance abuse, domestic violence, stable income, and housing. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
4/23/2025
|
4/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1430 |
|
State v. Grubbs
| C-240165 | EVID.R. 404 — MURDER — SELF-DEFENSE — COUNSEL — PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT: While the admission of the still shot of a Facebook video portraying defendant and codefendant holding guns was admissible for impeachment purposes, the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the still shot to be published to the jury bearing a caption containing both violent and racially pejorative language, however, the admission of the still shot was harmless error as defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by its admission and, if it were excised, overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt remained to support defendant’s conviction. The trial court did not plainly err by admitting evidence of other guns and drugs where defendant cannot show, if the evidence were excised, the outcome of his trial would have been different. Defendant received the effective assistance of counsel as he cannot show that, had counsel objected to the evidence of other guns and drugs, there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different. While counsel’s statements regarding defendant’s initial burden of production were unnecessary since it is the trial court’s duty to instruct the jury on self-defense, it did not amount to a deficient performance nor was it so prejudicial to defendant as to constitute the ineffective assistance of counsel; further, counsel did not misstate the law as to a defendant’s initial burden of proof. The State’s calling defendant a “liar” on the record did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct where the statement was made based on defendant’s inconsistent testimony, and there was no prosecutorial misconduct where the State did not mischaracterize the forensic expert’s testimony that the decedent was not holding his gun when defendant used deadly force against him. Defendant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the State’s evidence to refute defendant’s self-defense claim showed that defendant did not have a reasonable belief of imminent danger of which the only means of escape was the use of deadly force, and expert testimony refuted defendant’s claim that he shot the decedent after seeing the decedent draw his gun. | Moore | Hamilton |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1384 |
|
Wood v. Kroger Co.
| C-240322 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT – PREMISES LIABILITY – NEGLIGENCE – NO-DUTY WINTER RULE – UNNATURAL ACCUMULATION: The trial court erred in granting summary judgment against plaintiff on her claim for negligence against defendant premises owner after plaintiff fell on a patch of ice while pumping gas, where competing evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a hole in a roof canopy created an unnatural accumulation of ice at the covered gas pump and as to whether the premises owner had superior knowledge of a substantially more dangerous condition than an invitee would appreciate, given the lack of winter precipitation on the ground. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1385 |
|
Ilboudo v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth.
| C-240454 | CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — DISMISSAL — FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM — PREJUDICE: The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint because it failed to identify a legal claim, but because her claim can be pleaded in another way, the complaint should have instead been dismissed without prejudice. | Nestor | Hamilton |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1386 |
|
State v. Thomas
| C-240151 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — BRADY — COUNSEL — MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — DISCOVERY VIOLATION — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — IDENTITY: Defendant’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 337 U.S. 83 (1963), were not violated by the State’s disclosure of exculpatory evidence during closing arguments of defendant’s bench trial because the new evidence was disclosed during trial, the trial court granted a three-month continuance for the parties to investigate the newly disclosed evidence, and defendant was able to admit the evidence and effectively use it; while defendant argued on appeal that he would have presented a different alternate-suspect theory of the case had he known about the exculpatory report prior to trial, defendant was not denied a fair trial given that defendant had suggested an alternate suspect might have been the shooter at trial. Defendant cannot show that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to pursue DNA testing and investigate potential alternate suspects as the results of these potential investigations were not in the record and accordingly defendant could not show prejudice in his direct appeal; defendant’s further argument that his counsel was ineffective for failing to maintain a request for a mistrial failed because defendant’s argument amounted to a disagreement with his trial counsel’s trial strategy. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial where the State’s nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence was not willful and the trial court’s three-month continuance and allowing defendant to introduce the withheld evidence was a reasonable method of mitigating any prejudice that defendant suffered from the late disclosure. Defendant’s convictions stemming from a shooting were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where, although an eyewitness’s statements to police the night of the shooting were inconsistent with her trial testimony, these inconsistencies were noted at trial and the remaining evidence was undisputed that defendant engaged in a heated argument with the eyewitness, drove away in a maroon car, and the eyewitness was shot at by someone in that maroon Ford a few hours later. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/16/2025
|
4/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1343 |
|
White v. Epps
| C-240312 | CIV.R. 41 — INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sustained petitioners’ objections to the magistrate’s orders dismissing their petitions for civil-stalking-protection orders against respondent based on uncontested facts, and petitioners’ prompt objections to the orders dismissing their petitions were contrary to having abandoned their petitions. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/16/2025
|
4/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1344 |
|
State v. Williams
| C-240409, C-240410, C-240411 | GUILTY PLEA — COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL — STIPULATED REPORT — ARSON-OFFENDER REGISTRY — PLEA COLLOQUY — AGREED SENTENCE – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – ALLIED OFFENSES: The trial court did not err when it found defendant competent to stand trial and then accepted defendant’s guilty pleas because defendant stipulated to the psychologist’s competency report and the trial court based its competency determination on the stipulated report, which accounted for defendant’s history, mental-health issues, and concerning behavior and concluded that defendant was competent to stand trial. Defendant’s guilty pleas were not unknowingly, unintelligently, or involuntarily entered despite the trial court’s misstatement regarding defendant’s duty to register as an arson offender for life where defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s misstatement affected his decision to plead guilty. Where defendant forfeited the issue of allied offenses or double jeopardy when he failed to raise the issues to the trial court as it imposed the jointly-recommended sentences and defendant failed to argue plain error on appeal, defendant cannot show that his jointly-recommended sentences are not authorized by law. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/16/2025
|
4/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1345 |
|