Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 176 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. McConnaughey C-200273, C-200274SEPARATION OF WITNESSES – PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS – APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – INVITED ERROR - MENACING – ALLOCUTION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for separation of witnesses and allowing the two victims to remain in the courtroom where the victims had the right to be present under Marsy’s Law and R.C. 2930.09 and where defendant failed to demonstrate that the exclusion of the victims was necessary to protect his right to a fair trial. The trial court did not err in admitting video recordings from the police officers’ body cameras as prior consistent statements of the victims under Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(b) where defendant’s trial strategy was to show that the victims had changed their stories over time and were embellishing their testimony, and sufficient impeachment occurred to amount to a charge of recent fabrication. Defendant’s conviction for aggravated menacing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the victim’s testimony showed that she had a subjective belief of fear of serious physical harm. Defendant’s conviction for menacing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the victim’s testimony showed that he had a subjective belief of fear of physical harm. The defendant was not denied his right to allocution where the trial court’s failure to afford him the opportunity to make a statement on his own behalf was invited error because defense counsel specifically stated that she had advised her client not to speak.WinklerHamilton 9/22/2021 9/22/2021 2021-Ohio-3320
State v. Woodson C-200362, C-200363JURISDICTION – JURY DEMAND – R.C. 2945.17: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial for misdemeanor offenses that carried the possibility of incarceration where the record reflects that defendant timely filed a jury demand in writing and did not waive that right.BockHamilton 9/22/2021 9/22/2021 2021-Ohio-3321
State v. Gatewood C-190654WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY — EVIDENCE — JUVENILE ADJUDICATION – HARMLESS ERROR – OTHER-WEAPONS EVIDENCE - FELONIOUS ASSAULT — SELF-DEFENSE - ENTRAPMENT BY ESTOPPEL - DUE PROCESS - CONCEALED- CARRY PERMIT: The trial court did not err in its determination that defendant’s juvenile adjudication was sufficient to demonstrate a weapons disability, whether or not defendant had notice of that disability. The trial court did not err in finding defendant was under a weapons disability where defendant never raised the defense of relief from disability. While the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other weapons and a bullet proof vest that were found on the defendant, but not used to commit the felonious assault, the error was not prejudicial where defendant admitted that he owned multiple firearms. [See CONCURRENCE: The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence of other weapons where defendant was charged with having weapons while under a disability and the weapons-under-disability count contained specifications for each weapon found in defendant’s possession.] The trial court erred in admitting evidence of other weapons and of a prior arrest, but where the state presented 11 witnesses and corroborating photographs, and highlighted inconsistencies in the defense’s case, the cumulative effect did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The issuance of defendant’s concealed-carry permit and his purchase of firearms from a licensed dealer did not constitute governmental assurances that his possession of firearms was legal under state law, and therefore, did not constitute entrapment by estoppel or violate due process. Defendant’s felonious-assault conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury was free to accept or reject testimony presented to it, and the state disproved at least one element of defendant’s self-defense claim. CrouseHamilton 9/22/2021 9/22/2021 2021-Ohio-3325
Wilson v. Durrani C-180196MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – STATUTE OF REPOSE – R.C. 2305.113 – R.C. 2305.15(A): The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff patient’s medical claims against defendant doctor where defendant fled the country less than four years after plaintiff’s claims arose, because R.C. 2305.15(A) tolled the four-year medical statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C). The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s medical claims against defendant doctor’s medical practice because R.C. 2305.15(A) did not apply to toll the statute of repose where the medical practice was not out of state, absconded or concealed.ZayasHamilton 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3226
State v. Baston C-200204MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS – R.C. 2953.52 : Where defendant’s incarceration on an unrelated offense was not a pending criminal matter, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s application to seal records based on its determination that defendant was ineligible to have records sealed because defendant had a pending criminal matter.MyersHamilton 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3228
State v. Duncan C-200079CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — SPEEDY TRIAL: The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on constitutional speedy-trial grounds: the Barker factors weighed against a violation, despite the timely-filed motion, given the state’s initial diligence, the lack of evidence linking the delay to the subsequent lack of diligence, and the absence of some particularized trial prejudice from the 13-month postaccusation delay.WinklerHamilton 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3229
State v. Vandergriff C-200282INVITED ERROR – ASSAULT – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – SUFFICIENCY: Defendant cannot argue on appeal that the trial court violated her due process rights by failing to continue her trial where the trial court offered but defendant refused a continuance. Defendant’s assault conviction was not against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence where the trial court’s credibility determinations were reasonable.BergeronHamilton 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3230
OTR Hous. Assocs., LTD. v. Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. C-200321TAXATION — REAL PROPERTY: In an appeal by property owners and a school district challenging a judgment of the court of common pleas, which reversed the decision of the board of revision that granted a substantial reduction from the auditor’s initial valuation of the property and then reinstated the auditor’s higher valuation as a default valuation, the trial court’s judgment was unlawful because the court misapplied the law when rendering its judgment by rejecting the property owners’ competent and persuasive appraisal evidence and by reinstating the auditor’s initial valuation as the default valuation.WinklerHamilton 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3231
State v. Porter C-200459CRIM.R. 29 – SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE – WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – SELF-DEFENSE: The trial court properly overruled defendant’s Crim.R. 29 motion where defendant failed to produce evidence that tended to show that she had a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of bodily harm, that she could only protect herself by using force, and that she only used the amount of force reasonably necessary in support of her claim of self-defense. The trial court had sufficient evidence upon which to base its guilty finding where defendant knowingly caused physical harm to the victim and the victim’s injuries were significant enough to warrant medical attention, particularly due to the risk that the physical harm could have posed to her fetus. The evidence was credible and the trial court did not patently lose its way in finding defendant guilty of domestic violence where testimony and photographs offered at trial supported that defendant caused injuries to the victim’s face, arm, and foot and defendant did not deny that she caused the victim’s injuries, rather, she claimed that she acted in self-defense.BockHamilton 9/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3232
State v. Thompson C-200388AUTOMOBILES/CRIMINAL – TRAFFIC STOP –CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – HARMLESS ERROR – CRIM.R. 16(K) – DRUGS – EVIDENCE – SENTENCING – CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES: Where the police officer stopped the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger for a traffic offense in a high-drug-trafficking area and during the stop noticed defendant’s nervous behavior and furtive movements around the car’s center console, the officer had a reasonable suspicion of drug activity necessary to extend the traffic stop while waiting for a K-9 unit to arrive. [See CONCURRENCE: While a “high-crime area” may be one of several factors justifying an investigative stop, courts should strengthen their review of the “high-crime area” designation to mitigate concerns about racial, ethnic and socioeconomic profiling that arise when designating an area as “high crime.”] Where the police officer lawfully ordered defendant out of the vehicle, the contraband that was revealed when defendant exited from the vehicle was in plain view, and therefore, its seizure was not unconstitutional. The trial court’s admission of marijuana evidence even though defendant was not charged with a marijuana offense constituted harmless error where defense counsel stipulated to the admission of police body-worn-camera videos, which exposed the jury to the presence of marijuana in the vehicle. The crime laboratory drug analyst’s testimony did not contravene Crim.R. 16(K) where her expert opinion was confined to her report and did not cause defendant unfair surprise. Defendant’s convictions for drug possession were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record did not support defendant’s arguments that exhibits were “mixed up” or that “slipshod handling and repackaging of the evidence” took place. The trial court’s imposition of maximum, consecutive sentences was not improper where record did not demonstrate that the court had failed to consider the statutory factors and the record supported the court’s findings.BergeronHamilton 9/15/2021 9/15/2021 2021-Ohio-3184