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?
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 149 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. McFarland CA2021-05-053Defendant who stabbed his roommate to death appeals his conviction for murder. State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. The evidence suggested that the defendant attacked the victim from behind. The defendant's behavior following the stabbing evidenced a guilty mind and was at complete odds with his later claim of self-defense.ByrneButler 7/5/2022 7/5/2022 2022-Ohio-2326
State v. Jarmon CA2021-08-091A conviction is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where strong circumstantial evidence is presented that the defendant committed the charged offense. An appellant fails to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel with respect to a motion to suppress where the claim is based on meritless potential arguments that counsel could have made in the motion. An appellant also fails to establish a claim that is based on counsel's decision not to object to unprejudicial trial testimony or counsel's decision not to cross-examine a forensic scientist on certain aspects of DNA testing where no prejudice is shown. An appellant fails to establish a claim of ineffective assistance that is based on trial counsel's decision not to investigate certain mitigating factors for sentencing purposes where the record does not indicate that counsel had a duty to investigate. Lastly, a claim of ineffective assistance fails that is based on counsel's decision not to object to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law if the reviewing court has consistently upheld the law's constitutionality. There is no due process violation where a defendant does not stand before a jury while dressed in identifiable jail clothing or does not object to what the defendant is wearing. The Reagan Tokes Law does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine or due process. A trial court's statement that it is not punishing a defendant for exercising the defendant's right to trial unequivocally dispels any inference that the court is doing so. A prison term is not contrary to law if it is within the statutory range for the offense and the sentencing court has considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. A trial court's findings under the consecutive-sentence statute will not be disturbed if they are supported by the record.HendricksonButler 7/5/2022 7/5/2022 2022-Ohio-2327
Grisham v. Meadow Ridge Cincinnati Assocs., L.P. CA2021-10-124A refundable amount given to secure payment for any damages caused by animals allowed in an apartment is a "security deposit" under R.C. 5321.16. Documentary evidence of payment is not required to prove payment of a security deposit. A subsequent owner can assume an obligation for a security deposit even if the deposit is not explicitly mentioned in purchase and sale documents. Knowledge of an obligation for a security deposit is irrelevant. A landlord is strictly liable for failing to comply with R.C. 5321.16(B).M. PowellButler 7/5/2022 7/5/2022 2022-Ohio-2328
State v. Beatty CA2021-10-057There is no language in R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) addressing how multiple firearm specification prison terms are to be served. The sentencing court has discretion to impose on the offender the prison term specified under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a) for any or all of the firearm specifications after sentencing for the two most serious specifications. In choosing to impose the additional firearm prison terms, the trial court made the necessary consecutive sentence findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), incorporated those findings into its sentencing entry and ordered that the prison terms be served consecutively.M. PowellClermont 7/5/2022 7/5/2022 2022-Ohio-2329
State v. Ellis CA2021-12-065Defendant's conviction for menacing and aggravated trespass was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court abused its discretion in imposing community-control conditions pertaining to alcohol.M. PowellClermont 7/5/2022 7/5/2022 2022-Ohio-2330
State v. Ballein CA2021-10-022The trial court did not err in denying appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion due to appellant's self-defense claim where the affirmative defense of self-defense is not an aspect of a sufficiency of the evidence or Crim.R. 29 analysis. The jury's guilty verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state produced evidence that, if believed, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did not have a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger prior to shooting the victim.HendricksonFayette 7/5/2022 7/5/2022 2022-Ohio-2331
State v. Gibson Fields CA2021-06-010Pursuant to the plain view doctrine, officers may seize evidence in plain view if they have not violated the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the spot from which the observation of the evidence is made. Incriminating evidence may be seized if it is viewable by officers before entering a property, even if the evidence is located in a home's curtilage. To convict a defendant of obstructing official business, the state does not need to prove that the defendant successfully prevented an officer from performing his or her official duties; rather, the state need only introduce evidence demonstrating the defendant actually interfered with the performance of an official duty and made it more difficult. While the offense of obstructing official business generally requires the doing of some affirmative act by a defendant, failing to act may still constitute obstruction of official business in certain circumstances. Failure to stand aside and permit officers to collect evidence after repeatedly being ordered to do soHendricksonMadison 7/5/2022 7/5/2022 2022-Ohio-2332
State v. Rojas CA2021-11-013Appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law, Ohio's indefinite sentencing structure set forth in R.C. in R.C. 2967.271, was forfeited where appellant did not first raise the issue with the trial court. However, given appellant's guilty plea to second-degree felony felonious assault, the trial court committed plain error by not applying the reverse-bindover procedures set forth in R.C. 2152.121(B)(3) to the case at bar when it should have, thereby requiring appellant's conviction be reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.S. PowellPreble 7/5/2022 7/5/2022 2022-Ohio-2333
State v. Seymore CA2021-09-113Trial court committed plain error by failing to merge defendant's burglary and aggravated assault convictions at sentencing.M. PowellButler 6/27/2022 6/27/2022 2022-Ohio-2180
State v. Palmer CA2021-07-035The trial court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on self-defense where the record reveals that appellant failed to provide evidence that tends to support he used force in self-defense. In this case, appellant's bare assertion that he was afraid for his life was insufficient to support his claim of self-defense under the circumstances. Furthermore, he used far excessive force in shooting the victim with a firearm in what was a minor altercation involving pushing and shoving. In addition, his conviction for felonious assault with a firearm specification was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.PiperClermont 6/27/2022 6/27/2022 2022-Ohio-2181
State v. White CA2021-05-007 & CA2021-05-008Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel did not file a motion to suppress the methamphetamine found in appellant's possession given that the discovery followed a constitutionally permissible traffic stop and where appellant's trial counsel could have reasonably concluded that filing a motion to suppress under such circumstances would have been a futile or frivolous act.S. PowellMadison 6/27/2022 6/27/2022 2022-Ohio-2182
State v. Cross CA2021-11-135The trial court did not err by accepting appellant's guilty plea to one count murder as there is no requirement within Crim.R. 11(C) that mandates the trial court to make a finding, on the record, that a defendant's guilty plea is being voluntarily entered, nor is there any requirement within Crim.R. 11(C) that obligates a trial court to notify a defendant that he or she will be classified as a violent offender and be included on the violent offender database prior to the defendant's guilty plea being made.S. PowellButler 6/21/2022 6/21/2022 2022-Ohio-2094
State v. West CA2021-07-012Appellant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent even though appellant asserts that he would not have pled guilty had he been able to assert a diminished capacity defense because such a defense is not available in the state of Ohio. Furthermore, the record reflects that appellant was appropriately advised of the consequences of his guilty plea.PiperMadison 6/21/2022 6/21/2022 2022-Ohio-2095
State v. Towson CA2021-08-069The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give a jury instruction on self-defense where the evidence was insufficient to warrant such a jury instruction.HendricksonWarren 6/21/2022 6/21/2022 2022-Ohio-2096
State v. Johnston CA2021-09-085Convictions for rape and gross sexual imposition were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where, although there was no physical evidence or corroboration, the two victims testified that their stepfather sexually abused them over a period of time.HendricksonWarren 6/21/2022 6/21/2022 2022-Ohio-2097
Allstate Vehicle & Property Ins. Co. v. Inabnitt CA2021-10-094 & CA2021-10-098There is no genuine issue of material fact that an insurance company has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured where the allegations state claims that are indisputably outside the contracted coverage.HendricksonWarren 6/21/2022 6/21/2022 2022-Ohio-2098
State v. Duncan CA2021-12-150; CA2021-12-151Anders no error.Per CuriamButler 6/13/2022 6/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1983
State v. Smith CA2021-02-009Defendant appeals assault conviction. Defendant’s aggressive actions sufficient to demonstrate knowing attempt to assault. Defense counsel not ineffective for failing to file affidavit of bias concerning remarks by trial court judge. Remarks did not establish bias. No evidence of resulting prejudice. Defense counsel not ineffective for withdrawing motion to suppress where filing the motion would have been futile. Defense counsel not ineffective for failing to call the defendant to testify. Procedures set forth under R.C. 2701.03(A) provide exclusive means of petitioning Ohio Supreme Court concerning alleged judicial bias by common pleas court judge.ByrneClermont 6/13/2022 6/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1984
State v. Wilson CA2021-12-027; CA2021-12-028Appellant's conviction for aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the first degree, was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state proved appellant, while in the vicinity of a juvenile, sold more than 24 grams of methamphetamine to a confidential informant during a controlled buy that was monitored and recorded by law enforcement.HendricksonFayette 6/13/2022 6/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1985
Jones v. Jones CA2021-05-045The domestic relations court did not err by overruling appellant's objection to a magistrate's decision where appellant did not file a transcript of the magistrate's hearing necessary to allow the domestic relations court to review appellant's objection as was required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii).S. PowellWarren 6/13/2022 6/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1986
Morgan v. Arick CA2021-07-063Whether to hold an in camera hearing on evidentiary issues is left to the trial court's discretion. While conducting an in camera review of allegedly privileged material is a good idea, a party is not entitled, as a matter of right, to an in camera hearing when privilege is asserted. Further, the party seeking in camera review must demonstrate that the records sought were not causally or historically related to his injuries beyond mere assertions.HendricksonWarren 6/13/2022 6/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1987
State v. Stump CA2021-09-082Anders no error.Per CuriamWarren 6/13/2022 6/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1988
In re H.E.C. CA2021-11-108; CA2021-11-109The juvenile court erred by ordering appellant to pay appellee monthly child support for appellant's children for the time they had been in appellee's temporary custody where appellee, although previously the custodian with whom the children resided, were no longer residing with appellee at the time appellee moved the juvenile court for an order of child support. The plain language of R.C. 2151.231 permits only the custodian of a child with whom a child then resides to bring an action in a juvenile court for an order requiring a parent of the child to pay an amount for the support of the child, not the custodian of a child with whom a child had previously resided.S. PowellWarren 6/13/2022 6/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1989
State v. Trejo CA2021-11-110Anders no error.Per CuriamWarren 6/13/2022 6/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1990
McConnell v. Sexton CA2021-08-096The trial court's order granting partial summary judgment on certain issues concerning damages is not a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) because it does not determine the action and prevent a judgment. The order merely limits the damages that can be potentially recovered, leaving the issue of liability unresolved and deferring a final decision on damages.M. PowellButler 6/6/2022 6/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1894
State v. Elam CA2021-08-106Defendant's assault conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant was at fault for creating the situation giving rise to the affray.M. PowellButler 6/6/2022 6/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1895
Hankinson v. Cooper CA2021-11-137The domestic relations court’s decision granting the petition for a domestic violence civil protection order against appellant filed by appellant's former girlfriend and mother of appellant's child was ambiguous as to the reasoning behind the domestic relations court’s decision, thereby necessitating the matter be reversed and remanded to the domestic relations court to clarify its decision where the domestic relations court's decision may have been against the manifest weight of the evidence in that there was no evidence indicating appellant had attempted to cause or recklessly caused appellee physical harm in the time since appellee dismissed a prior order of protection against appellant.S. PowellButler 6/6/2022 6/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1896
Smith v. Smith CA2021-11-061The domestic relation court did not err by transferring jurisdiction of a custody matter to a different state after considering the R.C. 3127.21 factors.PiperClermont 6/6/2022 6/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1897
Deere & Co. v. Brown CA2021-12-069The trial court did not err by denying the pro se appellant's motion to strike, nor did the trial court err by granting appellee's motion for a default judgment, given that the trial court's decisions effectively put a stop to appellant's continued efforts to avoid paying appellee what it is owed on the loan contract/security agreement that appellant defaulted on several years prior.S. PowellClermont 6/6/2022 6/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1898
State v. Bloodworth CA2021-08-073Appellant's convictions for felonious assault and possession of a deadly weapon while under detention were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit any error, plain or otherwise, in not providing a self-defense jury instruction for the offense of possession of a deadly weapon while under detention. The trial court did not err in imposing an indefinite sentence as the Reagan Tokes Law does not violate appellant's right to trial by jury or to due process of law; nor does it violate the doctrine of separation of powers.HendricksonWarren 6/6/2022 6/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1899
State v. Miller CA2021-10-014Defendant appeals judicial sanction for postrelease control violation. Defendant argued court abused discretion and sentence was cruel and unusual. Sanction of prison time, the remaining time to serve on postrelease control, was authorized by statute. Sentence authorized by statute is not cruel and unusual under proportionality review.ByrneBrown 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1798
State v. Medina CA2021-08-100The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.M. PowellButler 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1799
State v. Cummings CA2021-12-157Anders no error.Per CuriamButler 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1800
State v. Saurber CA2022-01-011; CA2022-01-013; CA2022-01-014Anders no error.Per CuriamButler 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1801
Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C. v. Tucker, Albin & Assocs. CA2021-06-031The trial court erred by granting summary judgment on a claim for breach of contract where nominal damages and attorney fees and costs under the breached contract may be recovered. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on a request for injunctive relief where there was little evidence that the contract would continue to be breached or that harm had been suffered. The trial court did not err by dismissing a claim for tortious interference with business relations and/or contract under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where the complaint does not allege that a party induced or otherwise purposely caused a third person not to enter or to continue a business relation or not to perform a contract.M. PowellClermont 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1802
In re A.T. CA2021-06-034The juvenile court did not err by classifying appellant's "Modification of Custody" motion as a motion to modify his and appellee's shared parenting plan rather than a motion to terminate their shared parenting agreement given appellant never requested the juvenile court terminate the shared parenting agreement, nor did the juvenile court err by finding no change of circumstances had occurred that would justify a modification of his and appellee's shared parenting plan where the alleged "changes" that appellant alleged justified a modification to the shared parenting plan were slight and inconsequential.S. PowellClermont 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1803
State v. Ruggles CA2021-03-023The trial court did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing appellant's postconviction relief petition where the appellant failed to establish any substantive grounds for relief and any error in the trial court's res judicata analysis was harmless.ByrneWarren 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1804
Vaughn v. Vaughn CA2021-08-078The domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motions for a continuance to obtain new counsel where it was appellant, and appellant alone, who created the circumstances giving rise to the need for appellant to twice move for a continuance so that he could obtain new counsel after appellant had already received multiple continuances, many of which were due to appellant's own contrived actions or feigned surprise, that ultimately resulted in this generally straightforward divorce taking multiple years rather than mere months, or possibly a year, to complete. The domestic relations court also did not abuse its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction that precluded appellant from introducing any exhibits or calling any witnesses (other than appellant himself) during any part of the three-day final divorce hearing given appellant's willful noncompliance and repeated failure to adhere to the domestic relations court's local rules and apparent refusal to respond to appellee's discovery demands. The domestic relations court further did not err by accepting appellee's expert witness's testimony regarding the median yearly salary appellant would expect to make for purposes of child support calculations given that expert witness testimony was the only evidence that the domestic relations court found credible.S. PowellWarren 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1805
State v. Owensby CA2021-08-092The trial court erred by suppressing drug evidence where the record reflects that the officer had probable cause to search the defendant's person for drugs after discovering marijuana in a vehicle that was lawfully detained and searched following a canine alert. Furthermore, a warrantless search was permissible in this instance because the defendant could have quickly hidden or destroyed the drugs.PiperButler 5/23/2022 5/23/2022 2022-Ohio-1702
Withrow v. Geico Advantage Ins. Co. CA2021-08-095Appellant failed to provide independent corroborative evidence for her uninsured motorist claim under either the more liberal statutory requirements or the stricter policy requirements. No evidence was produced beyond her own unsupported and inconsistent testimony which tended to show that she was struck by a motor vehicle, rather than simply falling.HendricksonButler 5/23/2022 5/23/2022 2022-Ohio-1703
McCloy v. Allen CA2021-09-110The trial court did not err by granting appellee's motion for summary judgment on appellant's negligence and negligence per se claims where appellant did not set forth any specific facts owing to the existence of a genuine triable issue beyond the mere allegations set forth in her pleadings as required by Civ.R. 56, thus rendering it proper for the trial court to grant summary judgment in appellees' favor on appellant's negligence and negligence per se claims.S. PowellButler 5/23/2022 5/23/2022 2022-Ohio-1704
In re R.B. CA2022-01-003; CA2022-01-004The juvenile court did not err by denying appellant's motion to dismiss a children service agency's complaints alleging her two children were abused and dependent children because the juvenile court did not hold its disposition hearings for either child within the 90-day timeframe set forth by the now former R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) as such failure does not divest the juvenile court of subject matter jurisdiction and appellant's argument was barred by res judicata given her failure to raise such a challenge on appeal from the juvenile court's dispositional decisions granting temporary custody of both children to the children services agency. The juvenile court also did not err by granting permanent custody of appellant's two children to a children service agency where the record provided sufficient credible evidence to support the juvenile court's decision finding it was in the children's best interest to grant permanent custody of both children to the children service agency. This included evidence that both chiS. PowellButler 5/23/2022 5/23/2022 2022-Ohio-1705
State v. Hart CA2021-11-064Trial court erred in denying defendant's application to seal the record of his convictions.M. PowellClermont 5/23/2022 5/23/2022 2022-Ohio-1706
State v. White CA2021-12-018The trial court did not err in sentencing appellant to serve concurrent sentences of a mandatory minimum 10 years in prison with a maximum possible term of 15 years in prison for the charge of first-degree felony rape and a definite eight years in prison for the charge of second-degree felony pandering obscenity involving a minor where the record established that the trial court considered all relevant statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 prior to issuing its sentencing decision, the trial court properly notified appellant that he would be subject to a mandatory five-year postrelease control term upon his release from prison, and the trial court sentenced appellant within the permissible statutory ranges for first and second degree felonies.S. PowellPreble 5/23/2022 5/23/2022 2022-Ohio-1707
Weidman v. Hildebrant CA2021-09-084The discovery rule applies to those libel actions where the publication of the defamatory statements was secretive, concealed, or otherwise inherently unknowable due to the nature of the publication. In such instances, a cause of action for defamation accrues when the plaintiff discovers, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she was injured by the wrongful conduct of the defendant. The discovery rule also applies to plaintiff's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light invasion of privacy, where such claims are inextricably premised on the same allegations that support the libel claim. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment to defendant on the basis that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(A).HendricksonWarren 5/23/2022 5/23/2022 2022-Ohio-1708
State v. Bond CA2021-08-103Appellant did not have any right to a jury trial in the Hamilton Count of Court of Common Pleas because he admitted that he committed the offense as an ongoing and continuous course of criminal conduct in Butler and Hamilton Counties. It is well-established that when an offender commits offenses in different jurisdictions as part of an ongoing and continuing course of criminal conduct, he may be tried and convicted for all the offenses in any one jurisdiction in which the offender committed one of the offenses or any element of one of those offenses. Therefore, the trial court was not required to advise appellant of a claimed right that he did not possess. In addition, the trial court did not err in its imposition of an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law. Furthermore, his claims regarding the constitutionality of the Regan Tokes Law are forfeited because he failed to raise them below.PiperButler 5/16/2022 5/16/2022 2022-Ohio-1628
State v. Manns CA2021-10-134Appellant's 36-month prison sentence for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court took into consideration all relevant statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 prior to issuing its sentencing decision, properly notified appellant he was subject to a mandatory five-year postrelease control term, and sentenced him within the permissible statutory range for a third-degree felony.HendricksonButler 5/16/2022 5/16/2022 2022-Ohio-1629
In re P.K. CA2021-06-032Appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain party's appeal of the denial of his motion for reconsiderationM. PowellClermont 5/16/2022 5/16/2022 2022-Ohio-1630
In re Adoption of M.R.P. CA2022-01-001The probate court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Stepfather failed to show that adoption was in the child's best interest. The person seeking adoption ultimately retains the burden of proving that adoption is in the best interest of the child.ByrneWarren 5/16/2022 5/16/2022 2022-Ohio-1631
In re Estate of Dickens CA2021-09-012Probate court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the amount of attorney fees for work performed during the administration of an estate.M. PowellBrown 5/9/2022 5/9/2022 2022-Ohio-1543