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?
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 253 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Hooks CA2021-12-148R.C. 2941.1410(A) provides an exception to the Major Drug Offender ("MDO") specification requirement where an offender is charged pursuant to R.C. 2925.03. Therefore, appellant's counts did not require R.C. 2925.1410(A) MDO specifications. The Google Maps images and detective's testimony adequately identified the premises upon which the high school is situated and outlined property boundaries for purposes of a school premises enhancement. The toxicologists' testimony regarding their credentials and the scientific testing they performed rendered their testimony compliant with the strictures of Evid.R. 702. Finally, appellant failed to identify prejudice resulting from alleged errors.M. PowellButler 11/21/2022 11/21/2022 2022-Ohio-4132
Siliko v. Miami Univ. CA2021-12-162Appellants, employees of Miami University, lacked standing under common-law principles and the Declaratory Judgment Act to bring their claims for (1) violation of the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment under Article I, Section I of the Ohio Constitution, (2) coercion under R.C. 2905.12, (3) violation of statutory authority under R.C. 3709.212, and (4) violation of 3972.04(B)(1) as they failed to demonstrate injury or that a real justiciable controversy existed between the parties. However, as appellants' amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts establishing standing to bring a discrimination claim under R.C. 3792.04(B)(2) pursuant to common-law standing principles, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of this claim and remand for further proceedings.HendricksonButler 11/21/2022 11/21/2022 2022-Ohio-4133
State v. Volz CA2022-06-028A sentence is contrary to law if at the sentencing hearing the sentencing court fails to make the proportionality finding mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and it cannot be discerned from the record that the court had engaged in the proportionality analysis before sentencing.PiperClermont 11/21/2022 11/21/2022 2022-Ohio-4134
Davis v. Royal Paper Stock Co., Inc. CA2021-09-028Decedent died after semi-tractor impacted stationary trailer. Plaintiff appealed from summary judgment decision favoring defendants on negligence claim asserting that the trailer's defective landing legs and the defendants' negligence contributed to decedent's death. Plaintiff's experts opined that decedent's injuries were due to failure of trailer's landing legs. However, neither expert performed any testing on the landing legs. Both experts simply presumed that landing legs were structurally defective. Speculation and inference were insufficient to establish a genuine issue as to proximate cause.ByrneClinton 11/21/2022 11/21/2022 2022-Ohio-4135
State v. Dunn CA2022-01-001Defendant appeals conviction following denial of motion to suppress evidence. Investigatory detention justified. Deputy had reasonable suspicion of criminal trespassing to temporarily detain defendant where defendant parked in running vehicle at odd hours in the parking lot of Ohio's Bureau of Criminal Investigation.ByrneMadison 11/21/2022 11/21/2022 2022-Ohio-4136
State v. Hawks CA2021-11-103 & CA2021-11-104Defendant appeals convictions following guilty pleas. Defense counsel acknowledged not having received state's discovery responses. Defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance where decision to plead defendant's own. Counsel openly discussed lack of opportunity to review discovery. Court offered to postpone proceedings, which offer the defendant declined.ByrneWarren 11/21/2022 11/21/2022 2022-Ohio-4137
State v. Schmidt CA2021-12-115The trial court did not err by permitting other acts evidence where there was a proper purpose for admission and the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Furthermore, appellant's conviction for gross sexual imposition was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.PiperWarren 11/21/2022 11/21/2022 2022-Ohio-4138
State v. Caldwell CA2022-04-032The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community control as the state presented substantial evidence that appellant failed to comply with the terms of his community control. Although the trial court did not provide a written statement of the evidence relied upon in revoking community control, appellant was not deprived of due process as the trial court provided an oral statement of the evidence and reasons for revoking community control. The trial court's sentencing decision deviated from the amount of prison time appellant was told he would receive if he violated the terms of his community control therefore the trial court should issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct its mistake so that the sentencing entry accurately reflects its pronouncements at the initial sentencing hearing.PiperButler 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 2022-Ohio-4035
State v. Shiveley CA2022-04-017The trial court did not err in making statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) where the record demonstrated that appellant continuously and persistently participated in the dissemination of child pornography. The record supports the trial courts’ findings that (1) appellant’s consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to danger appellant poses to the public and (2) that the actual harm caused by appellant was so great or unusual that no single prison term was sufficient to address that harm.PowellClermont 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 2022-Ohio-4036
In re L.E. CA2021-12-066The trial court did not abuse its discretion in designating Father as legal custodian and residential parent of the child where the court found that it was in the best interest of the child to do so, and that the likely harm in changing the child’s environment was outweighed by the advantages.HendricksonClermont 11/7/2022 11/7/2022 2022-Ohio-3962
In re E.T. CA2022-07-011A trial court is not obligated to appoint counsel for a parent if the parent has been notified that the appointment procedures require the parent to submit an affidavit of indigency but the parent fails to timely comply. There is no denial of the parent's statutory right to counsel or due process rights.M. PowellPreble 11/7/2022 11/7/2022 2022-Ohio-3963
Paeltz v. Paeltz CA2022-05-031The trial court dismissed Father's general objection for failure to contain any specificity, as required by Civ.R. 53. Because he failed to contest that finding on appeal, this court's review is limited to plain error. The trial court did not err by ordering Father to pay his children's expenses where the record shows that Father is well-compensated and has a zero child support order.PiperWarren 11/7/2022 11/7/2022 2022-Ohio-3964
State v. Cast CA2021-09-107The trial court did not err by admitting a toxicology report into evidence that showed appellant had a blood-alcohol level over twice the legal limit approximately one hour after an automobile collision between appellant and the victim occurred where the toxicology report was properly admissible into evidence pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a) as the report was generated following a diagnostic, non-forensic blood test conducted and analyzed at the hospital where appellant was treated for the injuries he sustained in the crash. The trial court also did not err by admitting into evidence the event recorder data downloaded from both appellant's and the victim's airbag control modules where the data was properly authenticated under Evid.R. 901(A) and was not inadmissible hearsay under Evid.R. 802 given that such data does not consist of "statements" made by a "person" as contemplated by the Rules of Evidence. The trial court did error, however, by admitting appellant's medical records into evidence because the certification that was attached to the records was not "verified" as required by R.C. 2317.422(A). But, although error, such error was harmless for the evidence contained in the medical records indicating appellant was suffering from acute alcoholic intoxication after having drank five or six beers prior to when the crash between he and the victim occurred was cumulative to the other evidence establishing appellant's intoxication at the time of the crash.S. PowellButler 11/7/2022 11/7/2022 2022-Ohio-3967
Turnmire v. Turnmire CA2021-12-165Under the federal Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Act (SGLIA), an insured spouse has an absolute right to change the beneficiary of a SGLIA policy. The insured spouse's fraudulent behavior of failing to disclose to a court that the beneficiary of a SGLIA policy has been changed to someone other than the person the court has ordered is not the type of fraud that warrants protection from preemption. On summary judgment, a court need not consider deposition testimony that would be inadmissible in court because it is based on hearsay and because the witness lacks personal knowledge of the matters testified to. Federal law governs a former spouse's right to a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity and preempts inconsistent state law. A trial court has no authority to change the beneficiary of a SBP annuity or to impose a constructive trust over annuity payments.S. PowellButler 11/7/2022 11/7/2022 2022-Ohio-3968
Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C. v. JK & R Express, L.L.C. CA2022-02-005Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a motor carrier on the ground the parties' broker-carrier agreement, which contained an express indemnification clause, did not evince a clear intent to abrogate the common-law indemnification requirements.M. PowellClermont 11/7/2022 11/7/2022 2022-Ohio-3969
State v. Jones CA2022-04-036The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s untimely petition for postconviction relief when it found that appellant failed to demonstrate either exception provided in R.C. 2953.21(A)(1). Further, the trail court did not err in finding that the Ohio Supreme Court’s tolling order was not applicable to appellant’s deadline to file his petition.PiperButler 10/31/2022 10/31/2022 2022-Ohio-3864
In re J.N.L.H. CA2022-06-063The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody of the child to a children's services agency where the child had been in the temporary custody of the agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period and such an award of permanent custody was in the child's best interest. The juvenile court did not err in finding and considering that Mother had abandoned the child as part of its best interest analysis, as Mother failed to maintain any contact with the child for significant periods of time.PiperButler 10/31/2022 10/31/2022 2022-Ohio-3865
Wisehart v. Wisehart CA2022-05-006The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to reopen the case as neither he nor his new spouse have any legally protected interest in a Trust's property.PiperPreble 10/24/2022 10/24/2022 2022-Ohio-3774
Gebremikael v. Aruma CA2022-02-022The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to adjust appellant’s child support obligation where appellant alleged that he had another child in Nigeria but failed to provide any documentation of the child’s existence. The court’s use of a different worksheet than the one provided in R.C. 3119.022 is not reversible error in this case. The trial court did not err in allocating appellant’s tax refund to spousal support arrears as the court has the authority to determine that a spouse’s separate property may not be awarded to them and there was no evidence that appellant had paid any spousal support. The trial court did not err in determining that a vehicle was marital property and specific credit card charges were separate debt where appellant failed to provide testimony or evidence to the contrary.PiperButler 10/17/2022 10/17/2022 2022-Ohio-3686
In re G.M. CA2022-05-053The juvenile court did not err in granting the agency's motion for permanent custody where the children had been in the custody of the agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and the evidence at the hearing established a grant of permanent custody to the agency was in the children's best interest.HendricksonButler 10/17/2022 10/17/2022 2022-Ohio-3687
State v. Gaskins CA2021-12-073Defendant appeals the denial of post-conviction motion to vacate postrelease control sanction. Defendant's claim that court improperly imposed a judicial sanction for violation of postrelease control rendered sentence potentially voidable, not void. Defendant required to directly appeal allegedly voidable sentence. Res judicata precluded attempt to collaterally attack sentence.ByrneClermont 10/17/2022 10/17/2022 2022-Ohio-3688
Wiseman v. Wiseman CA2022-03-004A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a Civ.R. 60(B)(3) motion for relief from a dissolution decree if the court finds that the movant knew about allegedly undisclosed property before signing the parties' separation agreement. A trial court does not err by relying on a magistrate's credibility determination and using that determination to independently make findings of fact and conclusions of law.PiperMadison 10/17/2022 10/17/2022 2022-Ohio-3689
State v. Baker CA2022-04-008Anders no error.Per CuriamMadison 10/17/2022 10/17/2022 2022-Ohio-3690
State v. Clinger CA2021-11-014The trial court did not err in allowing evidence of a defendant’s prior conviction for domestic violence where a defense witness testified about the defendant’s peaceful character and any error in allowing evidence of other convictions was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim told police the defendant shoved her, but later recanted her statement. The defendant’s sentence was properly imposed as the trial court was not required to make R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) findings for an offense of violence and the sentence was not otherwise contrary to law.HendricksonPreble 10/17/2022 10/17/2022 2022-Ohio-3691
PNC Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Seward CA2022-02-002Trial court properly concluded that bank's third foreclosure complaint was not barred by res judicata under the Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) double-dismissal rule.M. PowellPreble 10/17/2022 10/17/2022 2022-Ohio-3692
State v. Bedsole CA2021-09-089 & CA2021-09-090Although there was a lack of particularity in the affidavit in support of the search warrant for appellant's cell phone as to the reliability of the complainant, the failure to note the source of the phone number does not defeat probable cause, as it is not individual facts which supply probable cause, but the totality of the circumstances which control. While appellant may have placed drugs between his buttocks prior to officers instituting their investigation, the fact of appellant's incarceration in a jail where officers testified that drug searches regularly occur means that appellant knew an investigation was "likely to be instituted", satisfying the definition of tampering with evidence. Additionally, appellant's reinsertion of the drugs as they began coming out from between his buttocks also constitutes tampering with evidence.HendricksonWarren 10/17/2022 10/17/2022 2022-Ohio-3693
In re K.C. CA2022-05-037 & CA2022-06-038Anders no error.Per CuriamWarren 10/17/2022 10/17/2022 2022-Ohio-3694
State v. Harding CA2021-10-018Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's untimely, successive postconviction relief petition pursuant to R.C. 2953.23.M. PowellMadison 10/11/2022 10/11/2022 2022-Ohio-3595
In re C.L. CA2021-09-008A due process violation occurs if a parent is absent from a dispositional hearing where the parent's faces the potential loss of significant parental rights, the parent learns only one business day before the hearing that the parent will not be able to attend, and the hearing could have been rescheduled without significant impact on the children. A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for a continuance where the requested continuance was necessary to accord the movant due process.ByrnePreble 10/11/2022 10/11/2022 2022-Ohio-3596
State v. Jemison CA2022-03-009Appellant's conviction for two counts of first-degree felony felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) was supported by sufficient evidence where the state provided evidence that, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, appellant knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to two state highway patrol troopers by means of a deadly weapon when he deliberately—not accidentally—accelerated and rammed his automobile into each of their cruisers, thereby causing both troopers to sustain physical harm to their persons in the form of neck and back soreness/stiffness.S. PowellWarren 10/11/2022 10/11/2022 2022-Ohio-3597
Combs v. Ellington CA2022-01-001As appellant failed to file a transcript of the hearing on the motion for modification of child support, this court must presume the regularity of the proceedings and affirm the decision of the trial court modifying his child support obligation.HendricksonButler 10/3/2022 10/3/2022 2022-Ohio-3514
State v. Keith CA2022-03-007The trial court did not err in finding that appellant both refused to take a chemical drug test and operated his vehicle in violation of R.C. 2950.05(F)(1). There is no requirement under the statute that a refusal must occur within a two-hour time period. The state put forth sufficient evidence demonstrating that appellant explicitly refused to take a chemical test, as well as evidence that appellant was operating his vehicle where he was found in the driver’s seat with the engine on and the key in the ignition, and admitted to driving to the location. Because the fact that a suspect refuses to take a chemical test is admissible, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance for failing to suppress the refusal.M. PowellClermont 10/3/2022 10/3/2022 2022-Ohio-3515
Hogg v. Grace Community Church CA2021-11-025The trial court did not err by ordering appellant to compel discovery, as the record reflects that they were a named party in the action and required to provide discovery the trial court deems appropriate. Furthermore, under Ohio law, a defendant that is a corporate entity may only appear through a licensed attorney. Therefore, the trial court did not err by ordering appellant to retain counsel.PiperFayette 10/3/2022 10/3/2022 2022-Ohio-3516
Folberth v. Folberth CA2021-05-047 & CA2021-05-049The trial court did not err in its decision awarding Wife spousal support. The language in the parties' antenuptial agreement did not exclude consideration of income generated from Husband's separate property in calculating reasonable spousal support. The trial court considered the evidence before it in light of the relevant spousal support factors and did not err in entering an indefinite award.PiperButler 9/26/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3384
State v. Singh CA2021-12-158Appellant's convictions for rape, kidnapping, and assault were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state demonstrated appellant struck the victim in the face and head, forced her into an abandoned building, and vaginally raped her. As appellant's crying statements at the end of a recorded police interview were exculpatory hearsay statements not admissible under Evid.R. 801(D)(2), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the full recording at trial. The trial court did not err in not merging appellant's convictions for rape and kidnaping as appellant's movement of the victim from one neighborhood to another and his secretive concealment of the victim in an abandoned building had significance apart from the rape. Given the nature of appellant's conduct as well as the totality of the harm inflicted upon the victim, the trial court's decision to run appellant's 4-year prison sentence for kidnapping consecutively to the 8-to-12-year indefinite sentence for the rape was supported by the record. Appellant forfeited his constitutional challenge to the indefinite sentence imposed by the trial court under the Reagan Tokes Law by not first raising the issue with the trial court.HendricksonButler 9/26/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3385
State v. Gates CA2022-01-009When a trial court sentences a defendant to time served for a community-control violation, the defendant is not entitled to have equivalent jail-time credit applied against a subsequently imposed felony sentence. The community-control-violation sentence has been completed and is not being served concurrent to the felony sentence. The time that a defendant spends in jail between an arrest on felony charges until a preliminary finding that the defendant violated community control in a previous case relates exclusively to the felony charges. Therefore the defendant should be granted jail-time credit against the felony sentence.M. PowellButler 9/26/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3386
State v. Gilbert CA2022-02-021In granting judicial release to a defendant, trial court erred in failing to specifically list all the seriousness and recidivism factors that were presented at the judicial release hearing, as required by R.C. 2929.20(J)(2).M. PowellButler 9/26/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3387
State v. King CA2022-01-001Appellant's convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and not otherwise against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury heard testimony that the appellant was seen making furtive movements in the vehicle, the contraband was located where appellant directed those furtive movements, and no one else in the vehicle made any similar movements. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a mistrial where it issued a curative instruction to remedy the state's error in presenting inadmissible other acts evidence and there is nothing in the record indicating the jury failed to follow the curative instruction. Appellant cannot establish any claim for ineffective assistance of counsel where she fails to show that her counsel's performance was deficient or that she suffered any prejudice as a result of the alleged deficiencies.M. PowellClermont 9/26/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3388
State v. Ramsey CA2022-02-003The trial court did not err in finding that R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) imposes strict liability when the language of R.C. 2950, the other indicia of strict liability offenses, and the established case law throughout Ohio, support a finding that there is plain legislative intent to do so. Appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence demonstrated that appellant was evicted from his home, that he relocated to a new address, and that he did not notify the sheriff of his change of address in either instance within the applicable time frame. The affirmative defense of impossibility was not met, and trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance.HendricksonFayette 9/26/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3389
In re J.F. CA2022-06-043 & CA2022-06-045Anders no error.Per CuriamWarren 9/26/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3390
In re C.P. CA2022-05-004The second prong of the two-part permanent custody test was met where uncontested evidence revealed that Child had been in the custody of the agency for more than twelve months of a consecutive 22-month period. Appellant's arguments that he did not abandon Child, or that there was not sufficient evidence that Child could not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents, were not only incorrect, but irrelevant in light of the 12 of 22 provision being met. The juvenile court did not err in finding a grant of permanent custody was in Child's best interests where appellant abandoned Child, was unable to show he could or would support Child, and Child needed permanency following repeated removals.ByrneBrown 9/21/2022 9/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3320
State v. Fraley CA2021-10-131This court does not analyze consecutive sentences for compliance with R.C. 2929.11 or R.C. 2929.12, but rather under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court made the necessary consecutive sentence findings and appellant's sentence is not contrary to law. Furthermore, the trial court's sentencing decision did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. A sentence that falls within statutory limitations is not excessive or "grossly disproportionate" to the respective offenses.PiperButler 9/19/2022 9/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3270
State v. Baker CA2021-10-133Defendant appeals conviction and sentence for aggravated arson. Court found the defendant competent to stand trial based on court-appointed doctor's evaluation. Defendant requested second evaluation by a different doctor, which request the court granted. Second doctor offered same opinion. Invited error. Defendant waived argument that court deprived him of independent expert evaluation. Defendant requested second doctor and therefore invited error. Reagan Tokes Law. Court properly notified defendant of mandatory advisements. Defendant failed to preserve constitutional challenges for appellate review.ByrneButler 9/19/2022 9/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3271
Carozza v. Lusk CA2021-12-155Willful or wanton misconduct by officer would allow the city, as a political subdivision to be held liable under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a). Wanton or reckless behavior by officer would allow officer to be held personally liable as an employee of a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b). Demonstrating either wantonness or recklessness is subject to a high standard. Although the determination of wantonness or recklessness is typically within the province of the jury, summary judgment is appropriate in instances where the individuals' conduct does not demonstrate a disposition to perversity. Where officer slowed substantially as he approached the intersection and had at minimum his emergency lights activated, there was no evidence that his conduct rose to the level of recklessness contemplated by the statute.HendricksonButler 9/19/2022 9/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3272
State v. Tucker CA2022-02-020The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s untimely petition for postconviction relief when it found that appellant failed to demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering new evidence under R.C.2953.21(A)(1). Further, the trial court did not err in finding his claimed barred by res judicata when he failed to bring the claim on direct appeal.PiperButler 9/19/2022 9/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3273
State v. Powell CA2022-04-037Anders no error.Per CuriamButler 9/19/2022 9/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3274
In re Adoption of M.J.A. CA2022-05-051The probate court did not err by granting the Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate its adoption decree granting appellant's petition to adopt appellee's minor son upon finding appellee's consent to the adoption was unnecessary under to R.C. 3107.07(A) where the notice the probate court sent to appellee notifying appellee of when the hearing on appellant's petition was to occur was ostensibly not served on appellee at least 20 days prior to the hearing taking place as required by R.C. 3107.11(A), nor was the notice the probate court sent to appellee received by appellee or a member of appellee's household, but instead by the mail carrier tasked with delivering the probate court's notice to appellee's home address as evidenced by the mail carrier's "C-19" notation on the return receipt filed with the probate court.S. PowellButler 9/19/2022 9/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3275
Tinch v. Seward CA2021-12-023Juvenile court's decision to unilaterally convert a scheduled pretrial hearing into a full custody hearing, thereby granting legal custody of the parties' child to mother in father's absence, without notice that such an order may result from the pretrial hearing, and without affording Father an opportunity to be heard on the matter was a denial of procedural due process.M. PowellMadison 9/19/2022 9/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3276
W. Jefferson Properties, L.L.C. v. W. Jefferson Village Council CA2022-04-009The common pleas court did not err in the way it undertook its prescribed duties that required the court it to weigh the evidence submitted to it for review and determine whether the administrative decision being appealed was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of the substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. This is because, given the record presented to the common pleas court, it did not appear, either on the face of the transcript or by an affidavit filed by appellant, that any of the circumstances set forth in R.C. 2506.03(A)(1)-(5) applied that would necessitate giving appellant the opportunity to file a brief prior to the court issuing its decision.S. PowellMadison 9/19/2022 9/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3277
State v. King CA2021-09-116The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress a size 13 shoe located on appellant's front porch, nor did the trial court err in instructing the jury on complicity or by excluding certain double hearsay statements, where a detective moving a shoe to take a photograph of the shoe's sole did not constitute a warrantless search, where the trial court's instruction on complicity fairly and correctly stated the law, and where the exclusion of certain double hearsay statements constituted, at worst, harmless error given the overwhelming evidence indicating appellant was the principal offender who killed the victim by shooting the victim in the head and neck. This included, among other evidence, the discovery of appellant's fingerprints and DNA on the victim's vehicle's driver's side doorhandle.S. PowellButler 9/12/2022 9/12/2022 2022-Ohio-3178