|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Leonard
| C-230589 | INDICTMENT — SENTENCING: The trial court did not commit plain error by convicting defendant of rape when the indictment contained an imprecise date of the offense: where the precise date is not an essential element of the crime and where the victim testified to the timeframe of the offense and defendant agreed with the victim that the offense occurred during that time, and where defendant did not present any evidence as to how his defense would have been different and changed the outcome of his trial if the indictment had contained the precise date of the offense. Defendant’s sentence was contrary to law where the trial court failed to advise defendant of the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications in conjunction with his non-life felony indefinite prison sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law. | Winkler | Hamilton |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2817 |
|
State v. Davis
| C-240014, C-240015 | GUILTY PLEA – CRIM.R. 11: Defendant’s guilty pleas were made voluntarily where defendant repeatedly assured the court that he wanted to accept the plea agreement and confirmed that the pleas were not induced by any threats or promises. | Zayas | Hamilton |
7/24/2024
|
7/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2793 |
|
In re K.P.
| C-240251 | PARENTAL TERMINATION – BEST INTEREST: Former R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) set forth a list of circumstances that, if all were found to exist, mandated a finding that permanent custody was in the best interest of the children; even assuming that one of the conditions was not met, the trial court considered all of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and properly determined under those factors that a grant of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was in the children’s best interest. Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that mother had abandoned her children when the evidence showed that mother did not contact or visit her children for several months after their removal from the home due to mother’s drug abuse and then for nine months while she was incarcerated, even though mother started visiting the two youngest children after she was released from prison. The juvenile court did not err in finding that a grant of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest when the evidence showed that despite some progress, mother still had problems with sobriety, housing and mental health, and therefore, she had not remedied the conditions that caused the children to be removed from the home and she could not provide a legally secure placement for them. | Winkler | Hamilton |
7/24/2024
|
7/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2794 |
|
State v. Gill
| C-230520 | MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE – CRIM.R. 8 – JOINDER – MOOTNESS – APP.R. 16 – APP.R. 12 – REAGAN TOKES – R.C. 2929.19 – R.C. 2929.14 – SENTENCING – CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES – TRAFFICKING IN DRUGS – POSSESSION OF DRUGS – ALLIED OFFENSES – MERGER – FIREARM SPECIFICATION – MAJOR-DRUG-OFFENDER SPECIFICATION – R.C. 2941.1410 – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – RIGHT TO COUNSEL – CONSENT – PROTECTIVE SWEEP – SEARCH AND SEIZURE: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a continuance to obtain an independent lab test of the drugs recovered during a search of his apartment where defendant waited approximately two-and-a-half years after receiving a discovery report regarding the drugs to request the continuance, defendant had already been granted multiple continuances, and a jury was waiting to report to the courtroom. Defendant’s assignment of error challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief from prejudicial joinder was moot where the court had effectively granted the motion and accorded defendant the relief requested by subsequently continuing for trial only the charges that defendant sought to bifurcate. Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2), an appellate court may disregard an assignment of error where an appellant fails to provide an argument in support of the assignment in the appellate brief as required by App.R. 16(A)(7). Where the trial court provided the Reagan Tokes notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) at the plea phase of a joint plea-and-sentencing hearing, the trial court complied with the requirement that it provide the required notifications to an offender at sentencing. The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without making the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C). 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. The trial court erred in imposing separate sentences for multiple firearm specifications where the felonies to which the specifications were attached were part of the same act or transaction. An additional prison term may only be imposed for a major-drug-offender specification when the drug involved is a fentanyl-related compound or mixture thereof. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(11), a trial court may only impose one additional prison term on an offender for a major-drug-offender specification when the underlying felonies were committed as part of the same act. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress where, even if defendant had clearly and unambiguously invoked the right to counsel, defendant reinitiated a dialogue with the interviewing detectives and evinced a willingness and desire to discuss the investigation. Where the totality of the circumstances established that consent to search was voluntarily given and was not the result of coercion, and where consent was not tainted by a protective sweep of the premises to be searched prior to consent being obtained, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. | Crouse | Hamilton |
7/24/2024
|
7/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2792 |
|
Snyder v. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.
| C-230494 | EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION – RETALIATORY DISCHARGE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendant former employer on plaintiff former employee’s disability-discrimination claim because the deposition transcripts and plaintiff former employee’s medical and personnel records created genuine issues of material fact as to whether 1.) plaintiff former employee’s physical and mental impairments substantially limited his major life activities, and 2.) whether defendant former employer provided reasonable accommodations. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to defendant former employer on plaintiff former employee’s retaliation claim because the evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact and showed that defendant former employer terminated plaintiff former employee because of violation of attendance and respect policies, which were legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for that termination. | Bock | Hamilton |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2727 |
|
State v. Knipe
| C-230681 | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – R.C. 2919.25(A) – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: Where the trial court as factfinder found the victim’s testimony credible and where there was testimony that defendant grabbed and choked the victim and caused her pain by slamming her head into a door frame, the trial court did not err in finding defendant guilty of domestic violence. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2729 |
|
State v. Jackson
| C-230583 | ASSAULT — EVIDENCE — WEIGHT — SELF-DEFENSE: In a bench trial, the trial court’s finding that the state rebutted defendant’s self-defense claim was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim testified that defendant approached and punched the victim, because the trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of the victim and weigh the victim’s account against conflicting testimony from defendant. | Bock | Hamilton |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2728 |
|
State v. Walker
| C-230470, C-230481 | CRIM.R. 33(B) — UNAVOIDABLE PREVENTION: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a new-trial motion based on irregularity in the proceedings where defendant could not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds upon which he now relies to support his new-trial motion. | Bock | Hamilton |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2726 |
|
Bader v. Tepe
| C-230584 | EVICTION – ATTORNEY FEES – DAMAGES – RES JUDICATA – SECURITY DEPOSIT – RETALIATION: The trial court did not err in considering tenants claim for retaliation because the claim was not barred by res judicata where tenants raised the claim in their counterclaim and the claim was not adjudicated in the eviction hearing. The trial court did not err in awarding tenants double damages and attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 5321.16 where landlord wrongfully withheld a portion of tenants’ security deposit and retaliated against tenants for filing a complaint with the health department. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
7/5/2024
|
7/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2573 |
|
State v. Corrado
| C-230635, C-230636 | EVIDENCE – SELF-DEFENSE – SENTENCING – ALLIED OFFENSES: The trial court did not err under Evid.R. 404(B) in admitting evidence of defendant’s other acts prior to his assault of the victim where the other acts constituted the immediate background of the assault in question and where the acts were relevant to whether defendant acted in self-defense. The trial court did not err in concluding that defendant did not meet his burden of production regarding his self-defense argument where defendant did not produce legally sufficient evidence that would allow a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of a self-defense claim. The trial court erred in failing to merge two allied offenses of similar import where the offenses arose from the same conduct of defendant and where the court nonetheless imposed individual sentences for each of the two offenses and failed to allow the state to elect on which offense it wished to pursue sentencing. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
7/5/2024
|
7/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2575 |
|
State v. Johnson
| C-230373 | POSTCONVICTION — FALSE OR MISLEADING EVIDENCE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief where its decision was supported by competent, credible evidence. Defendant did not demonstrate that the state had knowledge of any misleading or false evidence presented by its fingerprint expert or that the testimony of the state’s expert was false or misleading where the expert acknowledged that the feature-comparison method used to analyze fingerprint evidence required subjective determinations, did not profess to be absolutely certain when identifying defendant’s print to the jury, and supported her identification with observable data. Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel and his performance was not deficient by not requesting a jury instruction on error rates in fingerprint identification where relatively few studies have been performed in this new and developing area of research. Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel and his performance was not deficient where counsel’s decision to refrain from cross-examining the state’s fingerprint expert on certain reports and guidelines published by forensic organizations was reasonable in light of the expert’s prior testimony that she was unfamiliar with the documents and where there was no other witness to contextualize why the expert’s unfamiliarity with those documents was problematic. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
7/5/2024
|
7/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2572 |
|
State v. Justice
| C-230591 | TESTIMONY – ADMISSIBILITY – HEARSAY – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – FICTITIOUS LICENSE PLATES: Defendant’s conviction for displaying fictitious license plates was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where computer inquiries established that the license plate displayed on his vehicle belonged to another motor vehicle. The admission of the officer’s testimony, based on his recollection of the results of computer inquiries, constituted plain error because the testimony was inadmissible hearsay, offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and the sole evidence supporting the conviction. | Zayas | Hamilton |
7/5/2024
|
7/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2574 |
|
State v. Yeban
| C-230297 | PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT – HEARSAY – PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION – CONFRONTATION CLAUSE – R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(h) — MISDEMEANOR SENTENCING – R.C. 2929.22(C): The prosecutor did not commit prejudicial misconduct by commenting on a police officer’s professionalism, replying to defense counsel’s reluctance to read jury instructions, commenting on the defense theory of the case and defendant’s testimony, or asking the jury to do the right thing in its verdict. The prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument by remarking that defendant was lying in his testimony, but that error did not prejudice defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a recorded 911 call, where the caller was relaying present sense impressions about his observations. The trial court committed at most harmless error in admitting statements about defendant made by a police office on his body-worn camera video in violation of the Confrontation Clause. Defendant’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a breath-alcohol concentration (“BAC”) above 0.17 percent in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(h) was supported by sufficient evidence where the state introduced a test result of defendant’s BAC and circumstantial evidence supported the inference that defendant was driving. Defendant’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a breath-alcohol concentration (“BAC”) above 0.17 percent in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(h) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury had the opportunity to weigh defendant’s credibility and the credibility of the state’s witnesses. The trial court abused its discretion in imposing a maximum misdemeanor sentence that was based upon criteria outside those set forth in R.C. 2929.22(C). [But see DISSENT: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to maximum sentence where the court properly considered defendant’s testimony and statements pursuant to R.C. 2929.22(D) and found defendant committed the worst form of the offense.] [But see DISSENT: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant to a maximum sentence where the court properly considered defendant’s testimony and statements pursuant to R.C. 2929.22(D) and found defendant committed the worst form of the offense.] Appeals court need not consider errors relating to the count under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), as the count was merged at sentencing with defendant’s conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(h). | Kinsley | Hamilton |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2545 |
|
Iranpour-Boroujeni v. Emami
| C-220129, C-220151, C-230345 | DISCOVERY – DIVORCE — VALUATION — DIVISION OF PROPERTY — SPOUSAL SUPPORT — ATTORNEY FEES – R.C. 3105.171 — R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) – R.C. 3105.73: In a divorce case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded evidence as a sanction for discovery misconduct under Civ.R. 37 where defendant husband’s repeated noncompliance with discovery orders resulted in contempt orders and husband later interfered with plaintiff wife’s attempt to obtain discovery from a third-party defendant. In a divorce case, the trial court abused its discretion when it relied on rental income to determine the value of equity in real property and then awarded half of that equity to wife in its division of property while also awarding wife half of that rental income elsewhere in the order. In a divorce case where husband failed to comply with a temporary support order and did not pay child and spousal support, or his share of the children’s education expenses, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to select an alternative valuation date for the parties’ retirement accounts when wife testified that she has been unable to substantially contribute to her savings. In a divorce case where an expert on property valuations thoroughly described her process for determining property values and the trial court found that expert testimony credible and husband’s testimony not credible, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it adopted the expert’s valuation of husband’s business. In a divorce case where an expert relied on asset-based and market-based approaches to value husband’s business, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the value of husband’s business and his income to award wife spousal support because the trial court’s reliance on the expert’s valuation of his property did not result in a double dip when his business was not valued based on his future income. In a divorce case where the trial court considered the relevant statutory factors and found that the factors indicated that a spousal-support award was equitable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that husband’s evidence of wife’s separate property and husband’s health conditions lacked credibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied husband’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment based on wife’s allegedly fraudulent testimony because the trial court found that wife credibly explained her understanding of her property ownership and husband’s evidence did not prove otherwise. The trial court’s decision to deny wife’s request for an award of attorney fees was reasonable where the trial court concluded that an award was inequitable based on the parties’ incomes and assets, and husband’s support obligations. | Bock | Hamilton |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2546 |
|
In re Guardianship of Dwyer
| C-230462, C-230533 | PROBATE COURT – GUARDIANSHIP – REMOVAL – R.C. 2109.24 –ATTORNEY FEES – MOOTNESS: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing defendant from certain accounts belonging to the ward after removing defendant as the ward’s guardian.Because defendant failed to obtain a stay of execution and plaintiffs successfully obtained a satisfaction of judgment, the issue of attorney fees is moot. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2544 |
|
State v. Lawson
| C-230633 | VENUE – COMPLICITY – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: The state adduced sufficient evidence of venue in Hamilton County where the victim of a burglary testified that he lived in Saylor Park, located in Hamilton County, and a neighbor who testified to witnessing portions of the crime from the front of his house stated that he lived in Saylor Park. Defendant’s conviction for complicity to commit burglary was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant’s brother, but not defendant, was alleged to have committed the burglary, defendant drove the getaway car, the victim testified that he had spoken only with defendant immediately before he left town with his wife, and a neighbor witnessed defendant pull the car up to the side door of the victim’s home where defendant’s brother exited immediately after defendant spoke with someone on the phone. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2466 |
|
Ho v. Co
| C-230571, C-230645 | GUARDIAN AD LITEM – FEES – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – DOMESTIC RELATIONS – STANDING – SUP.R. 48.03(H) – HAMILTON COUNTY COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS LOC.R. 10.5: The trial court abused its discretion when it awarded the guardian ad litem fees incurred during litigation before the common pleas court where the fees fell outside the scope of the guardian ad litem’s appointment. The trial court abused its discretion when it awarded the guardian ad litem fees where the guardian ad litem failed to comply with the procedural requirements of both Sup.R. 48.03(H) and Loc.R. 10.5, and the trial court did not provide mother with an opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of the fees. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
6/26/2024
|
6/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2424 |
|
State v. White
| C-230354 | PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT – CLOSING ARGUMENTS - SPEEDY TRIAL – AUTHENTICATION OF PHOTOS – TRANSCRIPTS OF PHONE CALLS - CUMULATIVE ERROR – WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY – AIDING AND ABETTING - MURDER: Where the prosecution commented in its closing argument on defendant’s only evidence, his phone records, noting that calls were made to defendant from the jail on the same days as testified to by a detective who identified defendant’s voice on the calls, even though it was a different phone number from a number that testimony shows was used for outgoing calls at the jail, any error did not deny defendant a fair trial where the trial court instructed the jury that closing arguments are not evidence and where the record does not support defendant’s claim that the state’s evidence against him was weak. A continuance due to a prosecutor’s family emergency was reasonable under R.C. 2945.72(H) and tolled the time in which the state was required to try defendant. A continuance granted at the request of both defendant and the state tolled the time because the motion was made, in part, by defendant, and could be attributed to both parties. Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial where defendant waived a substantial amount of time and time was tolled for one of the reasons listed in R.C. 2945.72, and even assuming that some of the time was chargeable to the state, defendant was still tried within the speedy-trial period. [See CONCURRENCE: Defendant withdrew his previous waiver of speedy-trial time “until the next jury trial date” where at a plea or trial setting before the jury trial, defendant expressly stated that he was not waiving time after the state requested a continuance; the state did not violate defendant’s speedy-trial rights because his trial occurred within proper time frame.] The trial court did not err in admitting photographs of the crime scene into evidence because they were adequately authenticated by testimony of a criminalist at the scene who stated that he and his partner processed the scene and his partner collected evidence and he photographed that evidence. The trial court did not err in allowing the jury to use transcripts of phone calls as a listening aid where the court instructed the jury that the audio of the calls was the evidence, not the transcripts, and where defendant never requested that the court review the transcripts. Defendant did not demonstrate that the cumulative effect of errors deprived him of a fair trial where none of the alleged errors, either separately or together, affected the fairness of the trial, and while the evidence of defendant’s guilt was circumstantial, direct and circumstantial evidence have the same probative value. The state presented sufficient evidence that defendant aided and abetted the principal offender in a murder and the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that defendant blamed the victim for his own shooting, defendant’s voice was heard on phone conversations talking about buying a new car and trailing a person named “Think,” which was the victim’s nickname, before the murder and celebrating after the murder, defendant bought a red four-door sedan just prior to the shooting, a red four-door sedan was seen leaving the scene of the shooting, and defendant’s car was painted gray shortly after the murder. | Winkler | Hamilton |
6/26/2024
|
6/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2426 |
|
In re E.J.
| C-240171 | PARENTAL TERMINATION — MAGISTRATE — OBJECTIONS —JUV.R. 40 — INDEPENDENT REVIEW — BURDEN OF PROOF — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE: The juvenile court failed to independently review the record following mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decision terminating her parental rights where the juvenile court’s judgment repeatedly referenced an appellate standard of review and held that the magistrate had not abused his discretion. The juvenile court erred by shifting the burden of proof to mother in a parental-termination case where the juvenile court adopted without modification the magistrate’s finding that mother had failed to present clear and convincing evidence of her present mental-health status. | Bock | Hamilton |
6/26/2024
|
6/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2421 |
|
Cincinnati v. State
| C-230492 | INJUNCTION – MUNICIPAL – R.C. 9.68 – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL – HOME RULE AMENDMENT – APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL: The trial court’s order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of R.C. 9.68, as amended in 2018 and 2022, was a final appealable order where the injunction reversed the status quo by enjoining an amended law that had been in effect for nearly four years. [But see DISSENT: The trial court’s order was not final and appealable where defendant, the appealing party, would be afforded a meaningful and effective remedy by an appeal after final judgment because plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction on the same grounds that it requested the preliminary injunction and because the trial court’s order maintained the status quo by returning the legal landscape between the parties to enforcement of original R.C. 9.68, which was in effect at the time that the first iteration of the lawsuit in this case was filed.] The trial court erred in granting plaintiff city’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of R.C. 9.68, as amended in 2018 and 2022, where plaintiff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the amended law violated the Ohio Constitution’s Home Rule Amendment, free speech clause, or the constitution’s embedded separation of powers doctrine, and where other preliminary injunction factors weighed against the issuance of an injunction. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
6/26/2024
|
6/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2425 |
|
In re J.G.
| C-230612, C-230613, C-230614 | JUVENILE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE – FAILURE TO COMPLY – FAILURE TO STOP AFTER AN ACCIDENT – RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: Where the evidence established that two persons identified the juvenile as the driver of a stolen car that refused to comply with an officer’s attempts to stop the car, and where the juvenile fled on foot after crashing the car while attempting to evade the officer, the trial court did not err in adjudicating the juvenile delinquent for acts that would constitute the offenses of failure to comply, failure to stop after an accident, and receiving stolen property if committed by an adult. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/26/2024
|
6/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2423 |
|
State v. Hyatt
| C-230623 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE –PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION – PROBABLE CAUSE: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress where the officer discovered syringes, marijuana, and two bags of a crystallized substance in plain view throughout defendant’s home and purse. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
6/26/2024
|
6/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2422 |
|
Shivaa, L.L.C. v. Royale Diamones, L.L.C.
| C-230605 | CIV.R. 56 — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — EVICTION — FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER: The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff landlord on its eviction claim based on alleged breaches of a lease agreement where the term of the lease had yet to begin at the time of the alleged breaches. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2367 |
|
State v. Kamara
| C-230609 | POSTRELEASE CONTROL – R.C. 2929.191 – VIDEO CONFERENCING: R.C. 2929.191(C) authorizes a defendant to participate in a hearing for the trial court to correct an error to a faulty postrelease-control notification by way of video conferencing. Where defendant participated in the R.C. 2929.191(C) hearing by video conferencing, the trial court did not correct the error in the imposition of postrelease control outside of defendant’s presence. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2368 |
|
State v. Henderson
| C-230527 | MOOTNESS — THEFT — R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENY — CONSENT: Defendant’s appeal from a misdemeanor conviction was not moot where, although defendant paid restitution as ordered and the trial court terminated defendant’s community control, the record did not affirmatively demonstrate that the trial court had remitted or that defendant had paid the previously-imposed court costs, fines, or fees, and unpaid costs, fines, or fees prevent a misdemeanor appeal from becoming moot. Defendant’s theft conviction under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) was not supported by sufficient evidence where the property owner testified that the owner permitted defendant to leave with the property and the state therefore failed to establish that defendant obtained control over the property without the owner’s consent. | Bock | Hamilton |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2312 |
|
State v. Ventura
| C-240051 | CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES — R.C. 2929.14(C)(4): Where the trial court did not make the necessary findings pertaining to necessity and proportionality under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2311 |
|
Swan v. Villas Condominium Unit Owners Assn.
| C-230517 | SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – MOTION TO ENFORCE – CONTRACT – MEETING OF THE MINDS: In the absence of evidence that the parties intended for a settlement agreement to be contingent upon the execution of a signed writing, the trial court did not err in granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement that was only signed by one of the parties. The trial court did not err in granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement where the parties reached a meeting of the minds as to all of the agreement’s essential terms. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2313 |
|
State v. Phillips
| C-240198 | SENTENCING – R.C. 2949.08 – JAIL-TIME CREDIT: The trial court erred by failing to calculate and award defendant jail-time credit at sentencing in accordance with R.C. 2949.08(C)(1). | Kinsley | Hamilton |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2310 |
|
In re K.M.
| C-230541, C-230542 | JUVENILE – DELINQUENCY – EVIDENCE – EVID.R. 404(B) – HEARSAY – SEX OFFENSES: In a delinquency proceeding for gross sexual imposition, the juvenile court did not err in admitting video recordings of social worker interviews with two child victims under the Evid.R. 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for medical treatment or diagnosis where the interviews took place at a medical center, the interviewers were not leading, and where the victims understood the need to tell the truth, did not have a motive to lie, and were relatively consistent. The juvenile court did not err in admitting evidence of the juvenile’s history with pornography where the juvenile opened the door to the evidence by cross-examining a witness about it and where the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial and where the trial court took extensive measures to limit the evidence and did not improperly consider it as propensity evidence, and where the evidence was thus not inadmissible under Evid.R. 404(B). The juvenile court erred in admitting evidence of a victim’s prior assault by the juvenile where the juvenile’s counsel did not open the door to the evidence and where it was highly inflammatory, was not necessary to clarify the context of the witness’s testimony, and had merely propensity-based evidentiary value and thus was inadmissible under Evid.R. 404(B): The juvenile court’s error was harmless where, after excluding the improper evidence, substantial other evidence supported the outcome of the trial beyond a reasonable doubt and where the trial court took other extensive measures to limit similar evidence and seemingly did not rely on the evidence in adjudicating the juvenile delinquent. The juvenile court did not err in adjudicating defendant delinquent where the adjudications were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2278 |
|
State v. Bradford
| C-230455 | ADMISSIBILITY – EVIDENCE – EVID.R. 404(B) – OTHER ACTS – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Where defendant was convicted of violating a protection order, the trial court erred in violation of Evid.R. 404(B) by admitting evidence of the underlying offense that resulted in the issuance of the protection order because the validity of the protection order was not a material issue in the case because defendant stipulated to the validity and service of the protection order, but the error was harmless because there is no reasonable possibility that this evidence contributed to his conviction given the other evidence presented at trial. [See CONCURRENCE: The erroneous admission of other-acts evidence that defendant threw urine on the victim would not be harmless if defendant’s identity were at issue.] Defendant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the protection order prohibited defendant from entering the victim’s place of employment, the victim was a streetcar operator, a witness testified that defendant was on the streetcar platform as the victim approached, and the factfinder found the witness’s testimony to be credible. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/12/2024
|
6/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2233 |
|
Devito v. Devito
| C-230539 | DOMESTIC RELATIONS – DIVORCE - PROPERTY DIVISION – DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD - FINANCIAL MISCCONDUCT: The trial court did not err in making a distributive award to wife from husband’s separate property: Although the trial court improperly characterized husband’s criminal actions and 30-year prison term as financial misconduct under R.C. 3105.171(E)(4), it also properly found that the distributive award was necessary to effectuate an equitable division of property under R.C. 3105.171(E)(1), R.C. 3105.171(B), and the court’s equitable powers. | Winkler | Hamilton |
6/12/2024
|
6/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2234 |
|
State v. Littlepage
| C-230368 | POSTCONVICTION — JURISDICTION — CRIM.R. 32.1 — GUILTY PLEA: The common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea where his conviction based upon that plea had been affirmed on direct appeal and where the issue presented in the motion to withdraw did not depend for its resolution upon evidence outside the record of the proceedings leading to defendant’s conviction and could have been raised in the direct appeal. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/12/2024
|
6/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2231 |
|
State v. Smith
| C-230415, C-230416 | JURISDICTION – VENUE – EVIDENCE: The evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s convictions where the state failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt when it failed to present evidence as to the city, county, or state where the offenses occurred. [But see DISSENT: There was sufficient evidence that venue was proper in Hamilton County where the evidence showed that the investigating and arresting officers worked for the Green Township Police Department, the offenses occurred on the North Bend off-ramp of westbound Interstate 74 next to the “Welcome to Green Township” sign, a sign at the police station said “Green Township Police Department, Hamilton County, Ohio,” and defendant and the charging documents were transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center.] | Kinsley | Hamilton |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2189 |
|
State v. McCloud
| C-230493 | TESTIMONY – ADMISSIBILITY – HEARSAY – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – AGGRAVATED ROBBERY – ATTEMPTED MURDER: The trial court erred in allowing the hearsay testimony of a witness, but the error was harmless because it did not affect the outcome of the trial. Defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that defendant obtained the victim’s cell phone and identification after shooting him multiple times. Defendant’s conviction for attempted murder was not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that defendant shot the victim in the chest, stomach, and wrist and attempted to shoot the victim in the head. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2190 |
|
State v. Smith
| C-230022, C-230023 | SENTENCING – JUDICIAL BIAS – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – EIGHTH AMENDMENT – CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT: The trial court did not exhibit judicial bias in imposing sentence where the record does not reflect that the trial court’s sentence was based on bias or prejudice. The trial court did not err in sentencing defendant to an aggregate term of 79 years’ imprisonment where the sentence was not based on impermissible considerations, was not contrary to law, and did not violate the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2187 |
|
State v. Allen
| C-230280 | CRIM.R.33(B) — UNAVOIDABLE PREVENTION: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence: Defendant could not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence upon which he now relies to support his new-trial motion where he did not specify what evidence had been recently discovered or suppressed, and, presuming the evidence to which defendant was referring was the arresting officer’s statement, defendant cannot show that it had been suppressed by the state when defense counsel acknowledged on the record that he had received the statement in discovery. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2188 |
|
State v. Brown
| C-210355 | CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: The trial court did not err by receiving defendant’s testimony while he was handcuffed because the case was tried to the court, and the record did not show that defendant was prejudiced by the restraints. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the restraints because defendant was not prejudiced by the restraints. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a continuance after learning the victim conducted her own investigation because the decision to cross-examine the victim instead of seeking a continuance was a strategic decision that cannot form the basis of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s convictions were not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that the victims identified defendant as the perpetrator, and the factfinder found the testimony of the victims to be credible. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/5/2024
|
6/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2148 |
|
State v. Stewart
| C-240255 | JURISDICTION — FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER — CRIM.R. 32(C): This court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal from a conviction of domestic violence entered by the Hamilton County Municipal Court where the judge’s sheet, although it contained separate dated entries for the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed, is one document for purposes of Crim.R. 32(C). Our prior case law holding otherwise is overruled: State v. Daniels, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140242, 2014-Ohio-5160, and State v. Wyche, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160678, 2017-Ohio-7041. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
6/5/2024
|
6/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2150 |
|
State v. Hammock
| C-230548, C-230549 | EVIDENCE — R.C. 2921.31 — CRIMINAL TRESPASS — R.C. 2911.21 — OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for criminal trespass in violation of R.C. 2911.21(A)(3) was not supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence showed that she was the owner of the premises where she allegedly trespassed. Defendant’s conviction for obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A) was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that, when a police officer attempted to enter her home to execute a search warrant, she pushed the door closed the first time the officer pried the door open and then, while swatting her arm at the officer, attempted to push the door closed the second time the officer pried the door open, to the point that the officer requested assistance from others on the scene with pushing the door open. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/5/2024
|
6/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2149 |
|
State v. Dale
| C-230474 | AUTOMOBILES/CRIMINAL – OVI – IMPAIRMENT – EVIDENCE – 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 the evidence established that defendant admitted to consuming alcohol, and the officer testified that defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, performed poorly on the field-sobriety tests, was stumbling, confused, forgetful, combative and intoxicated, and the factfinder found the testimony of the officer to be credible. | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/24/2024
|
5/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2001 |
|
State v. Storms
| C-230593 | SECOND AMENDMENT — CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS — CONSTITUTOINAL LAW/CRIMINAL: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s Second Amendment challenge to the charge of carrying concealed weapons where the trial court did not apply the correct legal standard set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022), to defendant’s challenge. | Bock | Hamilton |
5/22/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1954 |
|
In re J.F.
| C-230464, C-230465, C-230466 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — SEARCH AND SEIZURE — AUTOMOBILE — MOTION TO SUPPRESS — FOURTH AMENDMENT — TRAFFIC STOP — PROTECTIVE CONDUCT — R.C. 2923.16(B) — CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION — EVIDENCE: The trial court did not err in denying the juvenile’s motion to suppress a gun found in the car he was driving where the officers’ protective conduct of asking the juvenile to roll down his tinted windows during a lawful traffic stop to look in the back seat and determine whether any other occupants were present was not unconstitutionally intrusive conduct because, just like in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-109, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), the conduct was a minimally invasive additional intrusion to the lawful traffic stop that was reasonable and no more intrusive than necessary under the circumstances to protect the officers’ safety. The juvenile’s adjudication for improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B) was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that the juvenile was exercising dominion and control over the vehicle when the firearm was found, was the only occupant in the vehicle, admitted that he had previously touched the firearm, the firearm was plainly visible, and the location of the firearm in the vehicle permits the inference that the juvenile could have placed the firearm in the exact position it was in by reaching behind him from the driver’s seat and placing it there. | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/22/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1950 |
|
State v. Warner
| C-230388 | RAPE — R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) —EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — HEARSAY — STATEMENTS MADE FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT: Defendant’s conviction for rape of a person under the age of 13 was supported by sufficient evidence where the victim testified at trial that defendant performed acts constituting cunnilingus with the victim when she was less than 13 years of age. The trial court did not commit plain error in admitting the entire forensic interview of the child-rape-victim where defendant did not object to the video, the victim testifying at trial removed any Confrontation Clause concerns, and many of the victim’s statements in the interview were made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. | Bock | Hamilton |
5/22/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1949 |
|
Olthaus v. Niesen
| C-230513 & C-230515 | SANCTIONS — EXCUSABLE NEGLECT — FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT — R.C. 2323.51 — EVIDENTIARY HEARING — ABUSE OF DISCRETION — RELEVANCE: Where plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file a response out of time the day after defendants filed a motion to grant their motion for sanctions as unopposed, and where plaintiff’s counsel was out of town and encountered confusion regarding submitting the response, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiff leave to file the answer out of time. Where plaintiff and his counsel did not address binding precedent or argue for a modification of or exception to such precedent throughout litigation on both the merits and defendants’ joint motion for sanctions, the trial court erred in declining to award sanctions pursuant to R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(ii) because no reasonable attorney would have proceeded on a legal theory unwarranted in existing law without advocating for some modification of or exception to the doctrine. Where the record contains undisputed evidence of the social media posts and conduct at issue, the trial court did not err in declining to award sanctions under R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(iii) because plaintiff did not present factual allegations that lacked evidentiary support. Where defendant failed to raise a claim for sanctions pursuant to R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(i) below, he waived the right to raise the argument on appeal. Where defendants attempted to call plaintiff’s attorneys as witnesses during the R.C. 2323.51(B)(2) hearing on the sanctions motion, the trial court did not err in denying defendants’ request where the testimony was not relevant to the objective inquiry of R.C. 2323.51. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
5/22/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1953 |
|
State v. Tarrance
| C-230475 | EVIDENCE – PROTECTION ORDER - AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS – SUFFICIENCY – DOUBLE JEOPARDY: In a prosecution for violating a protection order under R.C. 2919.27, the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a copy of a protection order that was not certified or testified to as correct by a witness who compared the copy with the original order. Because the state did not present a certified copy of the protection order, it failed to prove a prima facie element of the offense, and therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. When a conviction is reversed due to insufficient evidence, the double-jeopardy clause bars a retrial. | Winkler | Hamilton |
5/22/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1952 |
|
West v. Cincinnati
| C-230469 | INJUNCTION – MUNICIPAL – PROCEDURE/RULES – R.C. 9.68: The trial court did not err in proceeding to the merits of plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief despite ongoing criminal proceedings against plaintiff for violating the city ordinance against which he sought equitable relief because, in R.C. 9.68(B), the General Assembly created an exception to the general principle that courts should not act in equity during the pendency of criminal proceedings where the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. The trial court did not err by consolidating the trial on the merits into the preliminary injunction hearing without notice under Civ.R. 65(B) because defendants did not show how they were prejudiced by the unnoticed consolidation. The question of whether the trial court erred by entering final judgment prior to defendants filing their objections to plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is moot because defendants properly preserved all of their arguments for appeal. The trial court did not err by enjoining Cincinnati Municipal Code 915-3(b) because it restricts the storage of firearms in a way not specifically provided for by federal or state law and thus is preempted and nullified by R.C. 9.68, Ohio’s statewide firearms uniformity law. The trial court erred in enjoining all other parts of Cincinnati Municipal Code 915, because all of those parts either do not relate to firearms at all or do not regulate firearms in a way that conflicts with R.C. 9.68. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
5/22/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1951 |
|
State v. J.B.
| C-230499, C-230500, C-230501, C-230502, C-230503, C-230504, C-230505 | R.C. 2953.32 – RECORD SEALING – ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s applications for record sealing where the trial court based its decision on the number of and nature of defendant’s misdemeanor convictions, and therefore, the cause must be remanded with instructions to the trial court to grant the applications. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1879 |
|
State v. Jackson
| C-230446 | POSTCONVICTION — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s petition for postconviction relief where there was competent, credible evidence supporting the court’s finding that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to argue in defendant’s motion to suppress that his cognitive deficits prevented defendant from knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights and voluntarily confessing: the trial court properly relied on the expert psychologist’s opinion set forth in his report to determine that trial counsel’s performance was deficient where the expert, after completing his report, reviewed the video recordings of defendant’s police interviews and opined that the recordings further supported his opinion that defendant’s intellectual capacity prevented him from competently waiving his rights. [But See DISSENT: The trial court abused its discretion by granting postconviction relief when it failed to apply the proper analysis to determine whether defendant had been prejudiced by trial counsel’s deficient performance.] | Bock | Hamilton |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1880 |
|
In re Guardianship of Hyde
| C-230576 | GUARDIANSHIP – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – REMOVAL – R.C. 2109.24 – BEST INTERESTS – SUP.R. 66.09 – DUE DILIGENCE – LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s applications to remove the guardian of her adult daughter and appoint her as guardian where the trial court based its decision on the best interests of the ward and the record supports the trial court’s decision. The trial court did not err in concluding that the guardian had fulfilled its duties where the guardian supported the effort to move the ward to a less restrictive environment, acted in the ward’s best interests, and meaningfully visited with the ward at least five times in one year. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1878 |
|
State v. Hardman
| C-230295 | POSTCONVICTION — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s postconviction claims for ineffective assistance of counsel where there was competent, credible evidence supporting the court’s finding that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient in advising defendant to reject a plea offer and not to testify in his own defense: concerning the plea offer, the evidence demonstrated trial counsel did not misadvise defendant on the applicability of self-defense and properly conveyed the offer; concerning the decision not to have defendant testify, the evidence demonstrated that counsel discussed the matter with defendant, defendant acquiesced to counsel’s decision, and counsel was able to obtain a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of self-defense without defendant’s testimony. | Zayas | Hamilton |
5/15/2024
|
5/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1866 |
|