|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Grayson
| C-230083 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST – EXCLUSIONARY RULE – GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION – PROCEDURE/RULES – R.C. 2947.14(A): The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his wallet where the officer witnessed a traffic violation, stopped a vehicle, requested identification from the driver and passenger, discovered a warrant for the arrest of defendant, and subsequently conducted a search incident to arrest. Where the state argued the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the arresting officer acted in good faith, the defendant failed to demonstrate that a legally-deficient warrant required suppression of the seized evidence. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/29/2023
|
11/29/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4275 |
|
Johnson-White v. Houston
| C-230059 | CIV.R. 56 — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — EASEMENT — ABANDONMENT: The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff where defendant failed to establish that a genuine issue of any material fact existed as to whether plaintiff’s easement was valid. The trial court did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment where plaintiff provided records that showed that the easement had been reflected in recorded deeds and chains of title since the 1960s, and the easement was not abandoned as (1) plaintiff and/or her late husband used the easement for over 30 years and (2) there was no evidence that plaintiff expressed an intent to abandon the easement or engaged in “unequivocal and decisive acts” that were inconsistent with plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the easement. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s request for a continuance under Civ.R. 56(F) to conduct further discovery where defendant failed to attach an affidavit stating sufficient reasons to justify defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. | Bock | Hamilton |
11/29/2023
|
11/29/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4276 |
|
State v. Ojile
| C-230032 | NEW TRIAL: The common pleas court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial on a charge of aggravated robbery based on the newly discovered evidence of his codefendant’s affidavit attesting to defendant’s innocence of this crime and confessing to placing the victim’s stolen property into defendant’s backpack and the newly discovered evidence of the jailhouse informant who recanted his trial testimony that defendant had confessed his involvement in this crime: this new evidence discloses a strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted given that the only evidence presented at trial tying defendant to this crime was the victim’s stolen property found in defendant’s backpack. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial on the remaining two counts of aggravated robbery and a single count of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery where the newly discovered evidence did not disclose a strong probability of a different result if a new trial is granted where the newly discovered evidence did not vitiate the evidence presented at trial or where it merely contradicted the evidence presented at trial. | Bock | Hamilton |
11/29/2023
|
11/29/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4277 |
|
In re C.J.W.
| C-220543 | CUSTODY – CHILDREN – ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The trial court abused its discretion in granting legal custody of the minor child to his sister instead of his mother where the evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that mother was unsuitable and that granting legal custody to mother would be detrimental to the child. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
11/29/2023
|
11/29/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4278 |
|
Potts v. Durrani
| C-220024, C-220034 | MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – EVID.R. 403 – EVID.R. 404 – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – HARMLESS ERROR – CUMULATIVE ERROR – EXPERT TESTIMONY – SETOFF – R.C. 2307.28 – CATASTROPHIC INJURY – R.C. 2323.43(A) – FUTURE DAMAGES – PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES – PREJUDGMENT INTEREST: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial based on evidentiary errors where references to the revocation of defendant doctor’s medical license were limited, other evidence challenging the doctor’s credibility was admitted, and other substantial competent evidence existed to support the jury’s verdict. Where the video-deposition testimony offered by plaintiffs’ expert witness concerning plaintiff’s cancer diagnosis was improper and should not have been played for the jury, but where the trial court appropriately handled the issue by stopping the video and providing a curative instruction and where plaintiffs did not attempt to link the cancer diagnosis to defendant doctor’s treatment, any error in the admission of the testimony was harmless. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from plaintiffs’ expert witness referring to defendant doctor as a liar where the comments predominately related to the plaintiffs’ claim that defendant doctor had misrepresented plaintiff’s need for surgery. Where portions of testimony offered by plaintiffs’ expert doctor witness concerning defendant doctor’s performance of the surgery went beyond the scope of a radiologist’s area of expertise, but where testimony from plaintiffs’ other expert witnesses indicated that performance of the surgery was not problematic and where plaintiffs’ counsel, in closing argument, focused on whether the doctor had misrepresented the need for the surgery and not whether he had botched the surgery, any error resulting from the admission of the expert’s testimony was harmless. The trial court did not err in failing to disclose settlement agreements reached between plaintiffs and settling defendants where the trial court conducted an in camera review of the settlement agreements and determined the appropriate amount of setoff. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting a jury interrogatory on whether plaintiff suffered a permanent physical functional injury where the record contained sufficient evidence in support of such a finding. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence concerning plaintiff’s future damages or in awarding future damages where the evidence established that plaintiff would definitely need future treatment and provided specific estimates for the damages that would be incurred for that treatment. Where there was no real-party-in-interest issue because the record demonstrated that one insurer settled its liens with plaintiff and the other insurer entered into a confidential settlement with plaintiff wherein plaintiff was obligated to reimburse the insurer from funds that he received, the trial court did not err in awarding plaintiff past medical expenses that had been paid by insurers. The trial court erred in reinstating plaintiffs’ motion for prejudgment interest and court costs after plaintiffs withdrew the motion. | Crouse | Hamilton |
11/22/2023
|
11/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4195 |
|
State v. Evenson
| C-220618 | THEFT – R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) – UNAUTHORIZED USE – R.C. 2913.04(A) – OWNER – VEHICLE TITLE – CRIM.R. 29(A) – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – DISCOVERY VIOLATION – CRIM.R. 16 – SANCTION: Defendant’s convictions for theft and unauthorized use of a motorcycle were based on sufficient evidence where the state established that, following the theft of his motorcycle, defendant transferred ownership of the motorcycle to his insurance company in exchange for $16,180.42 and, after the motorcycle was recovered, defendant subsequently stripped the motorcycle of parts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted a notarized power of attorney because defendant received an unnotarized power of attorney in discovery and both notarized and unnotarized copies of other documents signed on the same day, which all established defendant’s transfer of ownership of the motorcycle to his insurance company. | Bock | Hamilton |
11/22/2023
|
11/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4196 |
|
In re S.S.
| C-230075 | JUVENILE – SEALING OF RECORDS – EXPUNGEMENT – RESTITUTION: The juvenile court erred in denying the juvenile’s applications to seal and expunge his juvenile records by relying on unpaid juvenile restitution to conclude the applicant was not rehabilitated as an adult. [But see DISSENT: The juvenile court did not err in considering unpaid juvenile restitution to determine the applicant’s rehabilitation because the plain text of the juvenile record sealing statute permits the juvenile court to consider “[a]ny other circumstances that may relate to the [applicant’s] rehabilitation.” R.C. 2151.356(C)(2)(e)(vi).] | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/22/2023
|
11/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4197 |
|
State v. Payne
| C-230144 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - FOURTH AMENDMENT - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - AUTOMOBLE EXCEPTION – PROBABLE CAUSE: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in his car where, after his car was stopped for two minor traffic offenses, police officers noticed a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car and saw a lottery ticket containing small particles of raw marijuana, and thus, had probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement | Winkler | Hamilton |
11/22/2023
|
11/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4198 |
|
In re L.F.
| C-230270 | CONTEMPT – MOOTNESS – CUSTODY – CHILDREN – R.C. 3109.04 – CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES – BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD: Where the trial court purged mother’s contempt order, her appeal from that order was moot. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting father’s motion for custody after finding there was a change in circumstances due to the hostility between the parents and the modification was in the best interest of the child. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/22/2023
|
11/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4199 |
|
In re D.K.
| C-220587 | LEGAL CUSTODY – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – JUV.R. 40 – INDEPENDENT REVIEW – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPLEMENT AN INCOMPLETE TRANSCRIPT – RECORDING ERROR – DUE PROCESS – BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD – APP.R. 12(B): The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in in conducting its independent review of the magistrate’s decision where Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(b) expressly authorizes the juvenile court to adopt the magistrate’s findings in their entirety and the juvenile court added additional reasoning in its decision to respond to mother’s objections. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in conducting its independent review by relying on an affidavit of testimony that was presented to the magistrate but not transcribed because of an error where Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(b) expressly authorizes the juvenile court to take additional evidence when acting on objections to a magistrate’s decision. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in conducting its independent review by deferring to the magistrate’s findings of witness credibility, despite taking an affidavit, because the affidavit contained mother’s testimony originally presented to the magistrate. The juvenile court did not err when it ordered mother to submit an affidavit of the evidence that was presented at the hearing before the magistrate but not transcribed because of a recording error where Juv.R. 40(D) permits an affidavit to supplement a transcript where parts of that transcript are unavailable. The juvenile court did not violate mother’s procedural-due-process rights by ordering mother to submit an affidavit where an affidavit is a proper cure for a recording error and mother gained the benefit of submitting a 48-page affidavit of testimony without opposing counsel to potentially object or cross-examine mother. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in making its best-interest determination where its judgment addresses all statutory best-interest factors and supports each determination with competent and credible evidence. It would be inappropriate for a court of appeals to use App.R. 12(B) to dictate legal custody as a matter of law contrary to the juvenile court’s determination where the juvenile court has knowledge gained by observing the witnesses and the parties over five years of proceedings. | Winkler | Hamilton |
11/17/2023
|
11/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4148 |
|
In re R.C.
| C-220660, C-220661, C-230030 | SERIOUS YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ¬– R.C. 2152.14 – DOCTRINE OF LACHES – DUE PROCESS – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – DISCOVERY ¬– EVIDENCE – EXCLUSIONARY RULE ¬– AUTHENTICATION: The juvenile court did not err when it rejected the juvenile defendant’s doctrine-of-laches argument where the government’s delay in bringing its motion to invoke the suspended adult portion of defendant’s Serious Youthful Offender (“SYO”) disposition was based on a reasonable justification. The juvenile court did not err to the prejudice of defendant’s due-process or effective-assistance-of-counsel rights when it rejected several of defendant’s evidentiary objections because evidence was turned over to defendant’s adult-court counsel, neither the Ohio Rules of Evidence nor the exclusionary rule applies to SYO-invocation proceedings, and court records were properly admitted. The juvenile court did not err when it invoked the adult portion of defendant’s SYO disposition because the court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where there was clear and convincing evidence that defendant was in possession of a fentanyl-related compound and was in constructive possession of two firearms while under disability. | Crouse | Hamilton |
11/17/2023
|
11/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4149 |
|
State v. Frye
| C-230002 | SEX OFFENSES – MEGAN’S LAW – FAILURE TO VERIFY CURRENT ADDRESS: Defendant’s conviction for failing to verify his current address under R.C. 2950.06 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that he was convicted of rape on March 17, 2006, and sentenced to seven years’ incarceration; he was released on January 4, 2013; as a sexually oriented offender under Megan’s Law he was required to verify his current address annually for ten years; he was required to verify his current address on January 7, 2022; when he did not do so, he was sent a notification letter stating that he had to verify his current address by January 19, 2022; and he did not verify his current address by that date. Due process does not require a trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether a defendant is a sexually oriented offender under Megan’s Law, because that classification attaches as a matter of law. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/17/2023
|
11/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4150 |
|
State v. Morris
| C-230108 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL– RIGHT TO COUNSEL – WAIVER – ATTACHMENT – STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS – INTERROGATION: Defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution attached at his arraignment, where defendant was brought before a judge who set bond, informed him of the nature of his charges, determined probable cause, and appointed defendant counsel. Defendant’s right to counsel under Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution is broader than the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and defendant’s uncounseled waiver of the right to counsel under Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution at a state-initiated interrogation was invalid. [See CONCURRENCE: Because the state Constitution may provide more protections for the accused than the federal Constitution, litigants are encouraged to continue to develop arguments under the Ohio Constitution.] [But see DISSENT: Interrogation is valid where there was no infringement on defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the right to counsel under Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution is comparable to the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, not broader; and no compelling reason exists for why Ohio constitutional law should differ from federal law in this area.] | Bock | Hamilton |
11/15/2023
|
11/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4105 |
|
Lanier v. Luxottica of Am., Inc.
| C-220593 | SUMMARY JUDGMEMT — FALSE ARREST: The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to show that an issue of genuine material fact existed as to his false-arrest claim where (1) defendant’s call for assistance from police and identification of plaintiff as the thief could not be construed as a request to arrest plaintiff, (2) plaintiff failed to show that defendant maliciously identified plaintiff as the thief, and (3) plaintiff failed to name his actual arresters—the deputies and their employer—as required under Ohio tort law. | Bock | Hamilton |
11/8/2023
|
11/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4041 |
|
In re J.G.
| C-220637, C-220638, C-220639 | JUVENILE – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – MIRANDA – TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES – WAIVER – WARRANTLESS SEARCH – CONSENT – DNA: The juvenile’s waiver of his Miranda rights and the juvenile’s consent to providing a DNA sample were not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances where the juvenile was emotional, injured, and agitated, the juvenile had no experience with the criminal justice system, force was used against the juvenile when taking him into custody, force was again used against the juvenile in an interrogation room at the police station in order to force the juvenile to comply and have a picture taken of an injury to his wrist, future force was threatened against the juvenile for further noncompliance, the Miranda warnings were hastily read with no explanation or allowance of time for the juvenile to ask questions, the juvenile was questioned by the same officer that had previously used force against him, the juvenile’s mother engaged in coercive behavior and threatened to allow the officers to conduct a DNA test on the juvenile, it was not explained to the juvenile that he, along with his mother, had to consent to providing the DNA sample, and the juvenile was instructed to sign the consent form, rather than asked if he wanted to consent to providing a sample. [But see DISSENT: The use of force here was not “coercive police conduct” required to find the juvenile’s Miranda waiver involuntary where the record does not demonstrate that the officers used force to compel the juvenile to confess and the force employed was not punitive but clearly precipitated by the juvenile’s own behavior.] | Crouse | Hamilton |
11/8/2023
|
11/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4042 |
|
State v. Rainey
| C-230015 | EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – MURDER – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Defendant’s conviction for murder was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that the child was healthy when left with defendant, defendant was the only adult present, the child died due to blunt force trauma to the head, the state’s experts testified that the injuries were caused by physical abuse and not an accidental fall, and the factfinder found the testimony of the state’s experts to be credible. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to call a psychologist to present expert testimony on defendant’s lack of propensity for violence because any testimony that a psychologist would have provided was purely speculative. | Zayas | Hamilton |
11/8/2023
|
11/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4043 |
|
State v. Lane
| C-230126 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION – PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION – PROBABLE CAUSE: The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress where the officer discovered a large bag of marijuana in plain view in defendant’s vehicle and thus had probable cause to search the vehicle. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/8/2023
|
11/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4044 |
|
Warman v. LivaNova Deutschland
| C-230149, C-230150 | DISCOVERY – PROCEDURE/RULES – PRODUCTS LIABILITY: The trial court did not err in staying discovery unless and until plaintiff could substantiate his claim of an injury potentially caused by defendants’ medical device. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s cases after he was unable to meet the conditions of the court’s discovery order by failing to provide any proof that he suffered an injury. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/8/2023
|
11/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4045 |
|
Breazeale v. Infrastructure & Dev. Eng., Inc.
| C-230172 | DISCOVERY RULE – PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – GROSS NEGLIGENCE – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS – STATUTE OF REPOSE – R.C. 2305.09(D) – R.C. 2305.131(A)(1): Because the discovery rule is inapplicable to professional negligence claims and because plaintiffs’ gross negligence claim involves the same allegedly negligent conduct as their professional negligence claim, plaintiffs’ claims began to accrue at the time the defendant-engineer completed its geotechnical work and these claims were therefore time-barred under R.C. 2305.09(D). [See CONCURRENCE: Though plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred, this is an unjust result and the discovery rule should be applicable to professional negligence claims involving damage to real property.] | Kinsley | Hamilton |
11/8/2023
|
11/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-4046 |
|
Chapel v. Wheeler Growth Co.
| C-220662 | PROPERTY – TORTS – ATTORNEY’S FEES – MALICE – PUNITIVE DAMAGES: The trial court did not err in finding that defendant acted with malice in ordering its contractors to trespass by removing plaintiff’s tree without his permission, and therefore, the trial court acted within its authority in awarding plaintiff punitive damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court did not err in awarding attorney’s fees where the court properly calculated the fees using the lodestar formula, the court did not err in not reducing the award based on duplicative billing entries, and the court’s award was not invalid on proportionality grounds, because there is no firm rule on the proportionality between plaintiff’s recovery amount and the amount of attorney’s fees awarded. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/3/2023
|
11/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3988 |
|
State v. Kitzilkaya
| C-230017 & C-230018 | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – VIOLATION OF A PROTECTION ORDER – EVIDENCE– MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the complaining witness testified that she was hit multiple times by defendant and the police officer that arrived at the scene observed her injuries. Defendant’s conviction for violation of a protection order under R.C. 2919.27 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the complaining witness testified that she clearly saw defendant and was threatened, and defendant made a call to police putting himself at the location of the incident. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
11/3/2023
|
11/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3989 |
|
Sanders & Assocs., LPA, v. Responsive Surface Technology, L.L.C.
| C-230220 | DEFAULT JUDGMENT – MOTION TO VACATE – SERVICE – CIV.R. 4.1(A)(1): In a breach-of-contract action for unpaid legal services, the trial court erred in refusing to vacate the default judgment entered against defendant for lack of service where plaintiff requested that the clerk of court serve defendant with the summons and complaint by certified mail, and the certified mail return receipt did not contain an address of delivery as required by Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1), the signature and address lines on the return receipt contained illegible smudges, and defendant presented uncontested affidavits from a corporate officer, employee, and agent reflecting that defendant did not receive the summons and complaint. | Winkler | Hamilton |
11/3/2023
|
11/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3990 |
|
McCann v. Durrani
| C-220025 & C-220033 | DAMAGES – PAST MEDICAL COSTS – FUTURE MEDICAL CARE – LAW OF THE CASE – SETOFF: The trial court did not err when it permitted plaintiff to retain the jury’s award of past medical damages, even though a subrogated insurer was not joined in the action, where plaintiff had settled the insurer’s claim outside of litigation. The jury’s award of future medical damages was supported by sufficient evidence where two expert witnesses testified to the need for and types of future medical care that plaintiff would require and one expert witness testified to the anticipated cost of future medical care. The trial court erred in reinstating plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest and court costs after plaintiff withdrew the motion. The trial court erred in calculating the amount of setoff to which defendants were entitled because the jury found that plaintiff’s injury was caused in part by defendants’ intentional tort and in part by unintentional torts, and the jury apportioned the percent of fault to each. | Crouse | Hamilton |
11/1/2023
|
11/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3953 |
|
State v. Smith
| C-220583 | NEW TRIAL – CRIM.R. 33(B): The common pleas court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for leave to file a new-trial motion where he did not show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds upon which his new-trial motion depends within the time prescribed for filing a motion for a new trial. | Crouse | Hamilton |
11/1/2023
|
11/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3954 |
|
State v. Lee
| C-230081 | JURISDICTION – CRIM.R. 23 – JURY DEMAND – R.C. 2907.06 – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Where defendant orally and in a written motion represented to the court that he wanted a jury trial and the trial court’s entries honored this representation, the trial court properly tried defendant’s case to a jury. Where the victim’s testimony that defendant touched her inappropriately was corroborated by officer testimony and defendant had contradictory narratives as to what transpired between him and the victim, defendant’s conviction for sexual imposition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/27/2023
|
10/27/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3900 |
|
Goomi v. H&E Ent., L.L.C.
| C-230099 | PREVAILING PARTY – ATTORNEY FEES – DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT – R.C. 4165.03: Plaintiff was a prevailing party under R.C. 4165.03(B), the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, by virtue of obtaining a jury verdict that defendant violated the statute, even though the jury awarded no damages on the claim: the plain meaning of the term “prevailing party” in R.C. 4165.03(B) is the party that obtains a judgment in its favor, regardless of whether a remedy accompanies the judgment. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/27/2023
|
10/27/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3901 |
|
State v. Mounts
| C-210608 | EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – EXPERT TESTIMONY – CRIM.R. 16(K) – LAY-WITNESS TESTIMONY – PLAIN-ERROR DOCTRINE – PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT: Where there was competing expert testimony on both sides and lay-witness testimony supporting the state’s case, the evidence did not point overwhelmingly against conviction and the jury did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice. Where defendant agreed not to proffer testimony from an expert witness that the state objected to, defendant waived any claim of error as to the scope of the expert’s testimony. Where the state did not move the court to have a witness qualified as an expert and the witness testified appropriately only to his rational perception of defendant’s demeanor, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness’s testimony. Where the prosecutor’s comment during rebuttal argument that defendant objected to merely highlighted an expert witness’s bias and motivation to testify, there was no prosecutorial misconduct. Where defendant failed to object to the prosecutor’s allegedly improper comments during rebuttal argument and the outcome of the trial would not have been different but for these comments, there was no plain error. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/25/2023
|
10/25/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3861 |
|
State v. Jones
| C-220624 | CHILD ENDANGERING – R.C. 2919.22 – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY: Defendant’s convictions for child endangering were not supported by sufficient evidence because the risks posed to the children were purely speculative and impermissibly based on stacking inference upon inference where defendant mother had left her eight- and ten-year-old children alone in an apartment that had been padlocked from the outside. [But see DISSENT: Defendant created a substantial, nonspeculative risk of harm by padlocking the door from the outside, preventing emergency egress, and the children’s actions showed that they believed there was a risk of harm.] | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/25/2023
|
10/25/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3862 |
|
GigSmart, Inc. v. AxleHire, Inc.
| C-230109 | PERSONAL JURISDICTION – FORUM-SELECTION CLAUSE – CONTRACT – R.C. 2505.02 – PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION – APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL – FINAL ORDER: Where the record contained sufficient, clear and convincing evidence that defendant created its own account on plaintiff’s platform, the trial court did not err in determining that a valid contract existed between plaintiff and defendant. Upon creating its own account on plaintiff’s platform, defendant assented to the plaintiff’s terms and conditions, including a forum-selection clause. The trial court did not err in finding a forum-selection clause to be reasonable where both parties to the contract were commercial entities, there was no evidence of fraud and overreaching, and the chosen forum was not so inconvenient so as to afford no remedy at all or deprive the defendant of its day in court. Where both parties to a contract are commercial entities, the factors set forth in Barrett v. Picker Internatl., Inc., 68 Ohio App.3d 820, 825, 589 N.E.2d 1372 (8th Dist.1990), need not be considered when determining the reasonableness of a forum-selection clause. Where defendant would not be afforded a meaningful or effective remedy upon an appeal after final judgment, the trial court’s order granting a preliminary, antisuit injunction to maintain the status quo was a final, appealable order. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing an antisuit injunction against defendant where there was a substantial likelihood that plaintiff would prevail on the merits, absent the injunction, plaintiff faced an injury that could not be remedied through compensatory damages, no third parties would be unjustifiably harmed by the injunction, and the public interest would be served by the injunction. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/20/2023
|
10/20/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3807 |
|
State v. Stankorb
| C-230097 | OVI – R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) was supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence where chemical testing indicating the presence of alcohol in his blood in conjunction with eyewitness testimony describing his erratic driving proved that he operated his motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/20/2023
|
10/20/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3808 |
|
Speigel v. Ianni
| C-220467, C-230012, C-230036 | JURISDICTION – CHANGE OF VENUE – CIV.R. 3 – FORUM SHOPPING – ATTORNEYS’ FEES – R.C. 2323.51 – LODESTAR – CIV.R. 41(B)(1) – FAILURE TO PROSECUTE – CIV.R. 5: Where a change of venue has been granted from a trial court in one Ohio appellate district to a trial court in a different appellate district, the appellate district of the transferee trial court is the proper forum to review a challenge to the change of venue on appeal. Where a party opposes a change of venue in the original forum, the matter is preserved for appeal and the party need not object again in the transferee court. Despite a property that was the subject of a claim in the action being located in Clermont County, no abuse of discretion occurred in the trial court’s transfer of venue from Clermont County to Hamilton County where the action was first filed in Hamilton County before being dismissed and refiled in Clermont County, defendant resided in Hamilton County, two other properties that were also at issue were located in Hamilton County, the contract was allegedly breached in Hamilton County, all or part of the claims arose in Hamilton County, and the plaintiff was forum shopping by filing in Clermont County. No abuse of discretion occurred in the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees where plaintiff provided the trial court with a lodestar of fees sought and the trial court awarded the amount requested, less approximately $5,000, and the trial court’s order was sufficient to establish that it found the rates charged to be reasonable and based its fee award on the lodestar. No abuse of discretion occurred in the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute where plaintiff’s attempts to delay the proceedings were well documented in the record and where plaintiff failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption of proper service of notice of a show-cause hearing and of an entry granting her counsels’ motion to withdraw. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/20/2023
|
10/20/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3809 |
|
Ora v. Fitness Internatl., L.L.C.
| C-220211 | RES JUDICATA: The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment on the basis of res judicata in favor of defendant when plaintiff’s claims had already been litigated on the merits in federal court. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/20/2023
|
10/20/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3810 |
|
In re M.H.
| C-220437 | CHILDREN – LEGAL CUSTODY – SUITABILITY – BEST INTEREST– R.C. 3109.04(F) – GUARDIAN AD LITEM : The juvenile court’s determination that appellant mother abandoned her two children was supported by competent and credible evidence, and therefore reasonable, where testimony, including mother’s own, demonstrated that mother did not visit or communicate with her daughters for months. The juvenile court’s determination that awarding custody of mother’s two children to their grandmother was not an abuse of discretion because the best-interest factors under R.C. 3109.04(F) were considered as part of the court’s analysis, and several factors including the children’s wishes, their relationships with their grandmother, and their adjustment to life with grandmother, were supported by competent and credible evidence. There was no evidence in the record to substantiate mother’s claim that the guardian ad litem’s report and testimony were motivated by bias where the guardian ad litem’s testimony described her investigation, and she was cross-examined on the contents of her report. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/18/2023
|
10/18/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3776 |
|
State v. Craig
| C-230112 | RESTITUTION – VICTIM – R.C. 2929.28 – ECONOMIC LOSS – TRAF.R. 10 – NO-CONTEST PLEA – SENTENCING – FINE – CRIM.R. 43: Where the driver of the vehicle that was struck by defendant paid for repairs to the vehicle, the driver suffered an economic loss and was a victim of the offense pursuant to Article 1, Section 10a(D) of the Ohio Constitution. Where the record contained evidence of the value of the vehicle damaged in an automobile accident, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding restitution in the amount of the cost to repair the vehicle without determining the value of the vehicle and determining whether the value of the vehicle exceeded the cost of repair. The trial court did not impose restitution without determining whether defendant had an ability to pay where the record showed that the trial court questioned defendant about his ability to pay. Defendant’s no-contest plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily where the trial court failed to inform defendant of the effect of the plea. The trial court erred by sentencing defendant to a mandatory fine without imposing the fine in defendant’s presence in open court. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/18/2023
|
10/18/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3777 |
|
State v. Lackey
| C-230025 | SEARCH AND SEIZURE – SEARCH WARRANT – PROBABLE CAUSE – STALENESS : The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress because the affidavit for the search warrant was supported by probable cause where police officers observed suspicious behavior at defendant’s residence and conducted multiple trash pulls from defendant’s residence which recovered items related to marijuana trafficking. Where police officers repeatedly found items related to marijuana trafficking in defendant’s trash and executed a search warrant only four days after its issuance, the information included in the affidavit was not stale. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/13/2023
|
10/13/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3720 |
|
Vinebrook Homes, L.L.C. v. Perkins
| C-220538 & C-220539 | REAL PROPERTY/LANDLORD-TENANT – PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice defendants-tenants’ counterclaims without notice under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) when defendants failed to appear for trial: Defendants were owed an opportunity to explain their absence before the court entered the final dismissal. The trial court did not err in entering plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of its damages claim because the dismissal did not prejudice defendants. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/13/2023
|
10/13/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3721 |
|
State v. Thompson
| C-220374, C-220375 & C-220376 | COMMUNITY CONTROL - R.C. 2929.19 – SENTENCING: Where the trial court erred in failing to provide the notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) at the time it sentenced defendant to community control, defendant could not be sentenced to a prison term for violating community control. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/13/2023
|
10/13/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3722 |
|
Ho v. Co
| C-220319 | GUARDIAN AD LITEM – EX PARTE – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – DUE PROCESS – DOMESTIC RELATIONS – PROPERTY DIVISION – ATTORNEY FEES: The trial court did not engage in improper ex parte communications with the guardian ad litem or with counsel where the record reflects that the only identified communications were for administrative purposes. Mother’s claims that the guardian ad litem made false statements are without merit where the record does not substantiate her concerns. The trial court did not err in its order of guardian ad litem fees where the court complied with the law and local rules. [But see DISSENT: Trial court should have disapproved the portion of the guardian ad litem fees that were block-billed and should have considered mother’s ability to pay under Sup.R. 48.02(H) and overall fairness under Local Rule 10.5 and Jud.Cond.R. 2.13(C) before awarding additional fees.] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the parties’ property where mother did not identify any assets that were omitted from the court order and our review of the record also did not indicate any deficiencies. The trial court did not err in striking certain matters from the record without holding a hearing on them where the applicable statutes did not require hearings and mother cannot establish that she requested hearings or that she was prejudiced by the absence of hearings. The trial court improperly used its contempt powers to enforce mother’s payment of guardian ad litem fees. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/11/2023
|
10/11/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3698 |
|
State v. Warth
| C-220477 | FELONIOUS ASSAULT — SELF-DEFENSE — DUTY TO RETREAT — SUFFICIENCY — WEIGHT — OTHER-ACTS Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant repeatedly went inside and outside of his home brandishing his gun, and defendant’s mother had smacked the victim in the forehead through the locked screen door and later threatened to hit her with a vase. Defendant shot the victim as she lunged at defendant’s mother only as they came within an arm’s reach of the victim as she stood on a public sidewalk. Defendant did not have an objectively reasonable, or a subjective, honest belief that he or his mother were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm for which the use of deadly force was his only means of escape where (1) defendant was previously behind a locked door in his house, and was at fault in creating the situation giving rise to defendant shooting the victim when defendant left the safety of his home—while armed with a gun—and approached the victim as she stood on a public sidewalk, (2) the victim did not attempt to gain entry to the home, (3) the victim left the property, and (4) the victim was unarmed. The state did not suggest that defendant should have retreated where the testimony that it elicited from the detective was based on his understanding of the law as it related to his decision to arrest defendant—which was due to defendant leaving the safety of his home to reengage the victim after she had left the property—as (1) the detective testified that defendant had no duty to retreat from his property, (2) the state clarified that defendant had no duty to retreat from his property, (3) defense counsel elicited testimony similar to what defendant raises on appeal as improperly elicited, and (4) the trial court’s jury instructions clearly stated that defendant had no duty to retreat and that the jury was not to consider the possibility of retreat when determining whether defendant had a reasonable belief that force was necessary. The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting other-acts evidence where the accusation that defendant molested the victim’s daughter forms part of the “immediate background of the act,” and explains what gave rise to the circumstances in this case. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/6/2023
|
10/6/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3641 |
|
Treadway Gallery, Inc. v. Baylor
| C-220635 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT – BREACH OF CONTRACT: In a breach-of-contract action brought by an art dealer against an online purchaser of a painting, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the art dealer where a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the reasonableness of the dealer’s actions in tendering a certificate of authenticity to the purchaser for the painting one year after promising to do so. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/6/2023
|
10/6/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3642 |
|
In re J.M.C.
| C-230007 | LEGAL CUSTODY – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that granting legal custody of mother’s children to a family friend was in the best interest of the children where it considered six statutory factors that were supported by competent and credible evidence, and where the juvenile court had reason to doubt the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services’ conclusion that mother had remediated the problems that brought the attention of the agency, despite mother completing case-plan services to the agency’s satisfaction. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/6/2023
|
10/6/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3643 |
|
In re J.D.
| C-220564, C-220565, C-220566, C-220567, C-220568, C-220569 | JUVENILE – SEALING OF RECORDS – EXPUNGEMENT – ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the juvenile’s applications to seal and expunge his records where the juvenile failed to establish rehabilitation. [But see DISSENT: The juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted nine of the juvenile’s applications to seal and expunge, but denied six similar applications, without identifying a compelling rationale for reaching a different outcome.] | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/4/2023
|
10/4/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3581 |
|
State v. Struckman
| C-220658 | NEW TRIAL – CRIM.R. 33(B): The common pleas court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for leave to file a new-trial motion where he did not show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds upon which his new-trial motion depends where all the evidence defendant relied upon to support his new-trial motion was available to him prior to or at his trial or within 120 days of the verdict. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/4/2023
|
10/4/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3582 |
|
State v. Hare
| C-230008 | ASSAULT – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s misdemeanor assault conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim’s testimony was consistent as to the basic elements of the offense and the trial court found the victim’s testimony credible. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/4/2023
|
10/4/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3583 |
|
State v. Searight
| C-230060 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – REAGAN TOKES LAW: The trial court erred in failing to deliver the Reagan Tokes Law sentencing notifications required under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) at defendant’s sentencing hearing. The Reagan Tokes Law does not violate the U.S. Constitution or Ohio Constitution on due process, right to trial by jury, or separation of powers grounds. State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535; State v. Guyton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962, appeal allowed, 168 Ohio St.3d 1418, 2022-Ohio-3752, 196 N.E.3d 850. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/4/2023
|
10/4/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3584 |
|
State v. Gatewood
| C-220616 | POSTCONVICTION: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief without first holding an evidentiary hearing where defendant failed to sustain his burden to demonstrate substantive grounds for relief: the evidence presented by defendant did not demonstrate trial counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial where trial counsel’s decision to try defendant’s weapons charge to the jury was strategic and where the jury was instructed that it could not consider defendant’s juvenile adjudication for any purpose other than to show that he was under a disability and that the prior adjudication could not be used to prove his character or that he acted in conformity with that character. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
9/29/2023
|
9/29/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3497 |
|
In re S.J.
| C-220221, C-220222, C-220223, C-220224 | OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – FIRST AMENDMENT – RESISTING ARREST – DISORDERLY CONDUCT – ESCAPE – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY: The juvenile court erred in adjudicating the juvenile delinquent for obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and escape, where the adjudications were based on insufficient evidence. [But see DISSENT: The adjudications for obstruction of official business, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct were supported by sufficient evidence.] Where the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the elements of an affirmative act, purpose, or hampering or impeding an officer’s official duties, there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile’s delinquency adjudication for obstruction of official business. [But see DISSENT: The juvenile’s adjudication for obstruction of official business was supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence established the juvenile was instructed by the officer to get out of the street and failed to comply with the instruction by continuing to walk in the street and exhibiting uncooperative behavior, impeding the officer from further assisting the other officers.] Where there was no lawful arrest and where the juvenile could not have understood she was being placed under arrest, her adjudication of delinquency for resisting arrest is not supported by sufficient evidence. [But see DISSENT: The juvenile’s adjudication for resisting arrest was supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence established that while the juvenile was being arrested for obstructing official business, the juvenile struggled with the officers, refused requests to place her hands behind her back, and the officer was required to spray a chemical irritant to effectuate the arrest.] The juvenile’s adjudication of delinquency for disorderly conduct was not supported by sufficient evidence, where she was not hindering or preventing movement on a public street, her conduct served a lawful and reasonable purpose, and her conduct did not create a condition that was physically offensive to persons or create a risk of physical harm to persons or property. [But see DISSENT: The juvenile’s adjudication for disorderly conduct was supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence established that the juvenile was standing in the middle of the street impeding and hindering traffic.] Where the juvenile did not purposely break her detention, her adjudication of delinquency for escape was not supported by sufficient evidence. [See CONCURRENCE: The adjudication for escape was not supported by sufficient evidence where the officer had not established control over the juvenile.] | Kinsley | Hamilton |
9/27/2023
|
9/27/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3441 |
|
State v. Lear
| C-220485 | GUILTY PLEA – CRIM.R. 11(C) – MANDATORY SENTENCE – APP.R. 12(A) – REAGAN TOKES LAW: Defendant’s guilty pleas to the offenses of having a weapon while under a disability and aggravated trafficking in drugs were entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily where the trial court imposed the five-year aggregate sentence recommended by defendant and the state and defendant suffered no prejudice from the trial court’s failure to inform him that he faced a mandatory sentence for the offense of aggravated trafficking in drugs and that he faced indefinite sentences under the Reagan Tokes Law for both offenses. | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/27/2023
|
9/27/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3442 |
|
Bauer v. River City Mtge., L.L.C.
| C-230001 | ARBITRATION – IMPLIED CONTRACT – MUTUAL ASSENT – EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE – EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS : Where plaintiff employee reviewed an employee manual and signed an acknowledgement form which contained a broad disclaimer of contractual obligations, there was no mutual assent to create a binding contract for arbitration. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
9/27/2023
|
9/27/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3443 |
|
State v. Stevens
| C-220494 | ZONING VIOLATION – NONCONFORMING USE – MUNICIPAL: The trial court did not err in convicting defendant of failing to discontinue using his property as a contractor’s storage lot where defendant failed to meet his burden of proof in showing that a contractor’s lot was a nonconforming use. There was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendant was a person in control of the property because he held himself out as the person responsible in the upkeep of the property and able to make repairs. A typographical error in the complaint did not rise to a constitutional violation. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
9/22/2023
|
9/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-3368 |
|