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 16 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Ellis 2020-CA-59The juvenile court was not required to hold a hearing to advise the appellant of her right to waive or refuse to undergo a second mental examination regarding her amenability to rehabilitation in the juvenile system. The juvenile court abused its discretion, however, in making its amenability determination without considering written reports submitted to it by a court-appointed psychologist and a guardian ad litem. The juvenile court was required to consider those reports even though neither party made them exhibits at an amenability hearing. The appellant’s post-bind-over guilty plea waived her ability to challenge an adverse suppression ruling. In any event, the juvenile court’s failure to consider all of the evidence in making its bind-over decision necessitates a remand and effectively renders moot the trial court’s suppression ruling. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Donovan, J., concurring in judgment only.)TuckerClark 1/21/2022 1/21/2022 2022-Ohio-147
Burns v. Crouse 2021-CA-8The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(5). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant’s objections regarding the magistrate’s calculation of her child support obligation using a “split parental worksheet” agreed to by the parties, and appellant suffered no prejudice when appellee paid her with a check for expenses for which he owed her. Judgment affirmed.DonovanDarke 1/21/2022 1/21/2022 2022-Ohio-145
State v. Reardon 2021-CA-15In this appeal, which involves three separate criminal cases, the trial court did not err in sentencing appellant to an additional year in prison pursuant to R.C. 2929.141, based on appellant’s violation of post-release control. The court told appellant of the additional sentence during the sentencing hearing and then properly included it in two termination entries. However, the court’s subsequent nunc pro tunc entry, eliminating the additional sentence from one judgment entry, was a nullity and had no legal effect. Therefore, appellant’s original sentence, including the additional year of incarceration, stands. The judgments are affirmed, but with the proviso that the case in which the nunc pro tunc entry was entered is remanded with an instruction to the trial court to vacate that entry.WelbaumMiami 1/21/2022 1/21/2022 2022-Ohio-151
State v. Voris 2021-CA-2The record establishes that appellant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. Additionally, appellant’s statutory rights to a speedy trial were not violated pursuant to R.C. 2945.71 through R.C. 2945.73. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order an additional evaluation, because appellant’s testimony at the competency hearing (along with the prior expert forensic reports) did not create a genuine question of his ability to understand the proceedings or to aid his attorneys. Furthermore, two competency evaluations were performed that found him competent to stand trial. The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 during the plea hearing. Appellant’s conviction in no way violated his constitutional rights to equal protection, fundamental fairness, and due process of the law. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMiami 1/21/2022 1/21/2022 2022-Ohio-152
State v. Curtiss 29006While records of a children’s services agency pertaining to abuse are confidential, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to disclose relevant and material records following an in camera inspection. The court also violated appellant’s right to confrontation to appellant’s prejudice by limiting his right to cross-examine a primary prosecution witness. Other error occurred as well, such as allowing admission of hearsay evidence, but appellant failed to object. When reviewed under a plain error analysis, this error did not create a manifest miscarriage of justice, particularly since the judgment is being reversed due to other prejudicial error. Judgment reversed and remanded.WelbaumMontgomery 1/21/2022 1/21/2022 2022-Ohio-146
State v. Hatfield 28990Appellant was convicted of murder as a proximate result of felonious assault, failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, three counts of tampering with evidence, and having weapons while under disability. His convictions for murder and failure to comply were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting as evidence (1) a recorded phone conversation between appellant and his wife that occurred while appellant was involved in a high-speed car chase with the police, (2) recorded phone calls made by appellant from jail, and (3) lay testimony from the State’s forensic digital examiner regarding the contents of cell phones. The trial court did not commit reversible error in its jury instructions on complicity and causation. The trial court did not err in failing to merge tampering with evidence (handgun) and having weapons while under disability as allied offenses of similar import. The trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 1/21/2022 1/21/2022 2022-Ohio-148
State v. Jones 29224State’s appeal. The trial court did not err in sustaining defendant-appellee’s motion to suppress evidence found in his car. The positioning of a police cruiser at an angle directly in front of appellee’s vehicle, which was backed into a parking space at his apartment complex, would have caused a reasonable person in his position to believe he was not free to drive away. Therefore, the trial court correctly found a “show of authority” that resulted in appellee being seized by police without reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity. State’s assignment of error overruled; remanded.TuckerMontgomery 1/21/2022 1/21/2022 2022-Ohio-149
State v. Pattson 29028 & 29029Appellant’s claim that his guilty pleas in two cases were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered lacks merit because the trial court’s plea colloquy did not fail to inform appellant of his constitutional right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses and did not fail to properly notify him of the maximum possible prison sentence for his offenses. Appellant’s claim that his aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and aggravated menacing offenses should have merged as allied offenses lacks merit because those offenses were either committed by separate conduct, committed against separate victims, and/or resulted in a separate, identifiable harm. Judgments affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 1/21/2022 1/21/2022 2022-Ohio-150
State v. Morris 2021-CA-31The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress drugs retrieved from her purse in the course of a traffic stop in which she was the vehicle’s passenger. The evidence established that appellant freely and voluntarily consented to the search of her purse in the absence of any coercive procedures. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 1/14/2022 1/14/2022 2022-Ohio-94
State v. Carter 29091The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. Based upon the totality of the circumstances following a ShotSpotter alert at an early morning hour, the officers’ reasonable articulable suspicion justified the Terry stop of appellant, a solitary pedestrian in the radius area of the alert, whose demeanor caused the officers to fear he might be armed and dangerous and pose a threat to their safety. In the course of the ensuing pat down for weapons, an officer lawfully seized methamphetamine “sticking out” from appellant's shorts. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in relation to appellant’s no contest plea. Judgment affirmed. (Tucker, P.J., concurring.)DonovanMontgomery 1/14/2022 1/14/2022 2022-Ohio-91
Dovetail Energy, L.L.C. v. Bath Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals 2021-CA-15The trial court did not err in finding that appellee’s biodigester facility is a public utility pursuant to R.C. 519.211(A) and thus exempt from zoning restrictions. The trial court also did not err in not remanding the case back to the BZA for further proceedings on the public utility issue; R.C. 2506.04 permits, but does not require, such an action. Finally, the trial court did not err in ordering the BZA to grant appellee’s request for an exemption to expand the facility because the expansion will also be part of the public utility. Judgment affirmed.EpleyGreene 1/14/2022 1/14/2022 2022-Ohio-92
In re A.A.R. 2021-CA-23The record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s dependency adjudication for appellant Mother’s three children. The preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s dispositional order awarding appellee Greene County Children Services temporary custody of the children. Judgments affirmed.TuckerGreene 1/14/2022 1/14/2022 2022-Ohio-93
State v. Clemmons 29204The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s post-conviction “Claim of Actual Innocence” because it was an untimely, successive petition for post-conviction relief that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider, and because the claims raised therein were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 1/7/2022 1/7/2022 2022-Ohio-27
In re Disinterment of Glass 29160; 29161The probate court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to quash a subpoena and notice to take Civ.R. 30(B)(5) depositions of appellant’s employees. Appellant, a cemetery association, is not exempt from providing discovery based on its claim of immunity from liability for damages under R.C. 2108.83. These cases involve applications for disinterment, which were brought under R.C. 517.23 and R.C. 517.24. In contrast, R.C. 2108.83 deals with the original disposition of a body and does not apply. Furthermore, even if R.C. 2108.83 were relevant, any immunity from damages it grants does not preclude nonparties from being subpoenaed for discovery. Civ.R. 45 specifically requires nonparties to provide information in litigation. Under Civ.R. 45, nonparties can challenge discovery requests where they create an undue burden or involve matters like privilege, and that is the proper avenue for obtaining relief. Accordingly, appellant was not exempt from providing discovery and was required to use standard means to quash or modify a subpoena. Finally, the probate court did not abuse its discretion when it found that appellant had failed to establish that the subpoena imposed an undue burden. Judgments affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 1/7/2022 1/7/2022 2022-Ohio-28
Timberlake Apartments, L.L.C. v. Underwriters at Lloyds London 29191The trial court erred in converting a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss into a Civ.R. 56(C) motion for summary judgment and entering final judgment for appellee without first giving appellant an opportunity to present evidentiary materials in response. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 1/7/2022 1/7/2022 2022-Ohio-29
State v. Wells 2021-CA-19The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to grant a continuance to appellant or to exclude witnesses when the State inadvertently sent a witness list to another one of appellant’s pending cases. All the potential witnesses were listed in discovery completed months earlier, and appellant was not prejudiced. Similarly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not classify a witness as an expert witness. Finally, because there were no errors, the doctrine of cumulative error does not apply. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 1/7/2022 1/7/2022 2022-Ohio-30