|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Seiker
| 2025-CA-59 | Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of 11 to 16.5 years in connection with her guilty plea to permitting child abuse, a first-degree felony. Her prison sentence was within the permissible statutory range, and the record established that the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in sentencing her. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1073 |
|
State v. Windsor
| 2025-CA-31 | Any error as to the form of appellant’s indictment, to which there was no objection, did not constitute plain error. The verdict forms were neither erroneous nor incomplete. Appellant was correctly designated a violent offender. The trial court did not err in the admission of video tape evidence. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by not merging appellant’s convictions of attempted murder and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1075 |
|
State v. Fletcher
| 2025-CA-10 | Appellant’s conviction of involuntary manslaughter for the death of her diabetic, teenage son is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Darke |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1072 |
|
State v. Farwell
| 2025-CA-31 | Appellant argued that his 14-month sentence for strangulation, a felony of the fourth degree, is contrary to law. However, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reweigh the statutory factors contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. In addition, appellant’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law because the trial court properly considered the purposes and principals of sentencing, considered the seriousness and recidivism factors, and concluded that granting appellant community control would demean the seriousness of his conduct. In addition, the trial court did not rely on incomplete or inaccurate information when imposing appellant’s prison sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Miami |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1071 |
|
State v. Farler
| 30494 | Appellant’s claim that his guilty pleas are invalid because the trial court failed to personally address him during the plea hearing and failed to ensure that he understood the effect of his pleas as required by Crim.R. 11(C) lacks merit because the record established that the trial court satisfied those requirements. Appellant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for withdrawing certain arguments from his motion to suppress lacks merit because it is purely speculative as to whether the withdrawn arguments would have been successful, and because withdrawing the arguments was a strategic and tactical decision by counsel that cannot form the basis of an ineffective assistance claim. Appellant’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him to plead guilty as opposed to no contest also fails because the claim relies on evidence outside of the record and therefore cannot be raised on direct appeal. Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences lacks merit because the trial court made all the required consecutive-sentence findings at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry, and those findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to consider his present and future ability to pay financial sanctions lacks merit because no such consideration was required given that the trial court imposed only court costs, which are not financial sanctions. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1070 |
|
State v. Ward
| 30526 | Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial record indicated that appellant created the violent situation and that he was not acting out of a legitimate fear of imminent bodily harm when he attacked appellee. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1074 |
|
Legacy Real Estate Investing, L.L.C. v. Maldonado Constr., L.L.C.
| 2025-CA-34 | The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions against appellant for pursuing an oral motion for Spanish-language interpreter on the morning of trial. The record does not support a reasonable conclusion that the motion was brought for purposes of delay and had caused a delay. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Miami |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-953 |
|
State v. Brown
| 30569 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s public records request pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Appellant failed to identify a pending proceeding to which the records would be material and how the records would be material to any justiciable claim. Appellant’s right to due process was not violated where he received notice and an opportunity to be heard in both the trial court and on appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-949 |
|
In re C.B.G.
| 30624 | Appellant, who was a 17-year-old juvenile, was charged in juvenile court with conduct that if committed by an adult would have constituted the offense of felonious assault (serious physical harm). Appellee filed a motion that requested transfer of the case to the common pleas court’s general division so that appellant could have been tried as an adult. Appellant, through a bill of information, was charged with felonious assault (serious physical harm) along with a serious youthful offender specification under R.C. 2152.13. The juvenile court imposed a juvenile adjudication and an adult sentence, which was stayed pending appellant’s successful completion of the juvenile adjudication. Because the case remained at all times in the juvenile court, the court erred by stating in its judgment entry that appellant pleaded guilty to felonious assault (serious physical harm), that the court accepted the guilty plea, and that appellant was convicted of felonious assault (serious physical harm). Judgment reversed and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-950 |
|
State v. Kiser
| 30647 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress methamphetamine found in his parked car. The community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorized a police officer to open appellant’s car door, exposing the drugs to plain view. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-952 |
|
State v. Shackleford
| 30621 | The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to vacate postrelease control where the argument raised in the motion is barred by res judicata and otherwise lacks merit. Judgment affirmed and matter remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of amending the sentencing entry nunc pro tunc to delete certain language that was mistakenly added to the entry when it was amended in 2011. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-955 |
|
State v. Allen
| 2025-CA-20 | Appellant’s arguments that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) and 2929.15(B)(3) at his disposition hearings are barred by res judicata, and even if the merits could be considered, in the absence of a transcript of those proceedings, we presume regularity. Appellant’s violation of the relocation requirement of his community control sanctions was nontechnical, and he was subject to revocation and incarceration. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to continue his community control violation hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-948 |
|
In re Adoption of J.T.S.
| 2025-CA-62 | The probate court erred in granting appellee-intervenor’s motion to intervene in an adoption proceeding and concluding that appellee was entitled to notice and to withhold his consent in the adoption. Appellee was not entitled to notice of the adoption petition under R.C. 3107.11, nor was his consent required under R.C. 3107.06(B) or 3107.06(A)(3). Appellee had not timely registered with the Ohio Putative Father Registry as required under R.C. 3107.07(B)(1). And although appellee filed a parentage action in the juvenile court nine days before the adoption petition was filed, prior to the petition’s filing, no judicial proceeding had determined that a parent-child relationship existed between appellee and the child. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Clark |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-951 |
|
State v. Martin
| 2025-CA-35 | The trial court erred in accepting appellant’s Alford plea to attempted murder. The trial court did not inquire into the State’s evidence supporting the charge. The trial court also did not inquire about defense counsel’s investigation into the strength of the State’s case or counsel’s recommendations to appellant. The trial court received merely a recitation of appellant’s indictment, which is not a sufficient factual basis for a defendant to enter an Alford plea. Absent a proper Alford plea hearing, appellant’s plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Appellant’s plea vacated, trial court judgment reversed, and matter remanded. | Hanseman | Clark |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-954 |
|
State v. Halderman
| 2025-CA-5 | The trial court erred in designating appellant a sex offender where his misdemeanor conviction of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor did not qualify as a sexually oriented offense under R.C. 2950.01. Prior appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue. This court’s prior judgment affirming the trial court’s judgment is vacated. The trial court’s judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case is remanded for the vacation of appellant’s sex offender designation. | Tucker | Greene |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-853 |
|
State v. Rivers
| 2025-CA-33 | In this felony sentencing appeal, the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing sentence, and appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-858 |
|
State v. Hearns
| 30491 | The trial court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to pay $41,850 in restitution for property damage in connection with appellant’s hit-skip conviction where the property damage was not a direct and proximate result of the hit-skip offense. Under R.C. 4549.02(B)(4) and/or R.C. 4549.03(B), the trial court had authority to impose restitution in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for damage that was the direct and proximate result of appellant operating his vehicle before, during, or after he committed the hit-skip offense. The trial court erred by finding that the $5,000 statutory cap on restitution was superseded by Marsy’s Law and by failing to apply the statutory cap. Judgment reversed and matter remanded to the trial court for the purpose of reimposing restitution in accordance with the law. (Huffman, J., concurring.) | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-854 |
|
In re Estate of Troutman
| 30573 | The probate court erred in vacating a 2003 judgment determining heirship under its inherent authority where the judgment was potentially voidable, not void. Appellant-heir’s claim that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to determine the heirs of a non-resident decedent was not ripe for review. Heir’s claim that the probate court had improperly attempted to divest a deceased heir’s vested rights was moot. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-855 |
|
Mesenbrick v. Hartley
| 30459 | The trial court’s dismissal without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) of appellant’s civil action was not a final appealable order. Although the trial court should not have dismissed due to appellant’s failure to obtain substitute counsel, any error in the court’s dismissal was rendered harmless by the parties’ ability to refile their claims. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-856 |
|
North v. Eichler
| 30614 | Appellant failed to establish that he did not receive proper notice of the final divorce hearing. The trial court’s order providing notice of the hearing stated that a copy of it was sent to appellant’s last-known address by regular U.S. mail, as required by Civ.R. 75(L). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dividing the parties’ property in half where the trial court relied on appellee’s proposed divorce decree and appellant failed to appear at the final hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-857 |
|
State v. Wilhite
| 30590 | An administrative suspension of appellant’s driver’s license was beyond the scope of his aggravated drug possession case. Assuming that his driver’s license was suspended for failure to consent to a chemical test in connection with a traffic stop, the present case was not the proper forum for appellant to challenge the suspension. Even if appellant could challenge the license suspension in this case, his attorney’s failure to file a timely appeal of the suspension below did not constitute ineffective assistance. The record also does not indicate that the suspension was appealed orally at appellant’s initial appearance on the drug charge. Finally, the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on the suspension within five days of appellant’s arrest did not deprive him of due process. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-859 |
|
State v. Williams
| 30649 | The trial court erred in sustaining in part appellee’s motion to suppress based on its conclusion that appellee was unlawfully detained beyond the scope of a traffic stop. Seconds after appellee was removed from his vehicle and patted down for officer safety, he fled the scene on foot, which terminated the stop before it was ever prolonged. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-860 |
|
State v. Fogle
| 30521, 30522, 30523 | The trial court did not commit plain error by ordering appellant to pay restitution of $265.92 after her dog bit a neighbor and attacked the neighbor’s dog. Judgments affirmed in the three consolidated appeals. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-755 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 30496 | Appellant has already served the jail sentence imposed by the judgment on appeal, so his appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-756 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 30506 | In allowing the child victims to testify outside of appellant’s presence without making any of the factual findings regarding necessity required under the child victim testimony statute, the trial court violated appellant’s right to confrontation. The trial court’s error was not harmless because without the children’s testimony, insufficient evidence supported appellant’s convictions as to the children for aggravated menacing and domestic violence (threats). Insufficient evidence supported appellant’s conviction of aggravated menacing in relation to his ex-wife, so the trial court erred in overruling his motion for acquittal. Judgment reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new trial on the charges pertaining to the child victims. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-757 |
|
State v. Norman
| 30623 | Conceded error. The trial court failed to provide the notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) at sentencing. Judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Act and affirmed in all other respects. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-761 |
|
State v. Wilson
| 30594 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motions for public records. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the information he sought was necessary to support a justiciable claim, and his motions were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-763 |
|
State v. Dominguez-Olivia
| 2025-CA-21 | Neither appellant’s statutory nor his constitutional speedy trial rights were violated. Appellant’s due process rights were not violated by the delay between his criminal activity and the indictment. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-754 |
|
Dayton Human Relations Council v. King
| 30497 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it extended the deadline for appellees to file a record of the proceedings before the magistrate in connection with their objections to the magistrate’s decision. There was good cause for the extension, which was authorized under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-668 |
|
State v. Fletcher
| 30458 | Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in taking her guilty plea without properly advising her about merger should have been raised on direct appeal from her original judgment of conviction, as opposed to after her resentencing upon the revocation of her community control sanctions. Res judicata applies. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-669 |
|
In re E.H.
| 30592 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate mother’s due process rights when it held the permanent custody hearing concerning her child in her absence due to her incarceration. Nor did the court abuse its discretion or violate mother’s due process rights when it denied her motion to continue the permanent custody hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate mother’s due process rights when it denied her motions for legal custody to a relative or a nonrelative because, among other reasons, neither proposed legal custodian signed a statement of understanding for legal custody that contained the statutorily required provisions of R.C. 2151.353(A)(3)(a) through (d). | Hanseman | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-670 |
|
McManus v. Foster
| 30591 | On appeal from default judgment on a tax foreclosure claim, appellant cannot raise issues and present evidence that he did not previously provide to the trial court. Trial court did not deny appellant adequate time and opportunity to respond to the complaint. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-671 |
|
State v. Reid-Payne
| 30554 | The trial court did not err in dismissing the indictment against appellee that alleged one count of carrying a concealed weapon. R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) is unconstitutional as applied to appellee, a 20-year-old who did not have a concealed handgun license. State v. Matosky, 2025-Ohio-5658 (2d Dist.). Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-672 |
|
U.S. Bank v. Ballard
| 30570 | The issue of appellee’s standing to bring its foreclosure action against appellants was previously determined to be moot, and therefore this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue. The trial court did not err in finding that the charges sought by appellee in its foreclosure action against appellants were not Fair Debt Collections Practice Act ("FDCPA") violations. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-673 |
|
Weber v. Weber
| 30629 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for relief from judgment, which was brought under Civ.R. 60(B)(4). The parties’ separation agreement did not provide for continuing jurisdiction over the case or modification of the agreement other than for matters involving the minor children, such as custody and parenting time. Although appellant asked the court to vacate the dissolution decree rather than modify it, she did not claim that the basis for the agreement was invalid due to grounds upon which relief could be granted, such as mutual mistake or fraud. Instead, appellant claimed relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(4), which was not allowed under prevailing authority. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-674 |
|
State v. Dorsey
| 30435 | The trial court did not err in dismissing a carrying concealed weapons charge. R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) is unconstitutional as applied to appellee, a 19-year-old who did not have a concealed handgun license. See State v. Matosky, 2025-Ohio-5658 (2d Dist.). Judgment affirmed, and the cause is remanded to proceed with the remaining counts in the indictment. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-581 |
|
In re K.R.H.
| 30587 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified father’s parenting time with his son to the Standard Order of Parenting Time. The standard order remedied the parties’ shared concern regarding the consistency of parenting time, and the trial court appropriately considered the statutory best interest factors of R.C. 3109.051(D). The trial court abused its discretion when it limited father’s parenting time with his daughter to therapy sessions only, with modifications within the therapist’s sole discretion. The record does not reflect that this would be in the child’s best interest. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-583 |
|
R.S. v. Rindler
| 30543 | Because the civil stalking protection order expired while the appeal was pending, the appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-584 |
|
State v. Trigg
| 30510 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief and overruling his motion for leave to file a delayed new-trial motion without holding an evidentiary hearing on the petition or motion. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-585 |
|
State v. Bankston
| 2025-CA-43 | The trial court erred in imposing a four-month term of incarceration for appellee’s fifth-degree felony conviction. The sentence is contrary to law because it falls outside the statutory range for the offense. The trial court possesses jurisdiction to impose a lawful sentence on remand despite appellee’s completion of his four-month sentence. Judgment partially reversed, sentence vacated, and case remanded for resentencing. | Tucker | Greene |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-580 |
|
In re J.H.
| 2025-CA-40, 2025-CA-41 | Appellant’s appeals from maximum sentences imposed for contempt findings are moot. The imposed sentences have been completed, and appellant failed to provide evidence from which an inference can be drawn that he will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from the judgments. Appeals dismissed. | Hanseman | Greene |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-582 |
|
State v. Dominguez-Olivia
| 2025-CA-19 | Appellant’s convictions for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence at trial supported the conclusions that appellant’s operation of his vehicle caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property and that he kicked the trooper voluntarily. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-484 |
|
State v. Bailey
| 30429 | Appellant was convicted of assault based on punching the victim at a party. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to present an 11-second video of the assault as it was properly authenticated, was not precluded by the best evidence rule, was relevant, and was not unduly prejudicial. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the trial court should have permitted appellant to present evidence of specific prior interactions between the appellant and the victim as proof of the appellant’s state of mind for purposes of a self-defense claim, the trial court did not commit reversible error. The evidence demonstrated that appellant was the initial aggressor when the assault occurred. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-481 |
|
Discover Bank v. Hinders
| 30571 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee-creditor on its action to collect the credit card debt of appellant-debtor. Evidentiary documents submitted to support creditor’s motion for summary judgment were not properly authenticated, so genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment remained. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-483 |
|
State v. Fitchpatrick
| 30574, 30575, 30576 | The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-485 |
|
State v. Harris
| 30426 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s untimely motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Appellant failed to seek leave to file his untimely motion and did not show that he was unavoidably prevented from filing a timely motion for a new trial or discovering the new evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-486 |
|
Oasis Home Buyers, L.L.C. v. Estate of Thomas
| 30524 | Appellant entered into a contract to purchase real estate, but before closing, the seller died. Upon the seller’s death, appellant was an estate creditor and was required to present its claim for specific performance of the purchase contract in accordance with the presentment requirements of R.C. 2117.06. Appellant did not properly present its claim against the estate in accordance with the statute, so the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to appellees. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-487 |
|
State v. Veal
| 30373 | The trial court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to pay restitution where the evidence did not establish that appellant’s act of driving without a license was a direct and proximate cause of any economic loss. Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-488 |
|
State v. Adams
| 30520 & 30527 | Appellant’s convictions for failure to stop at a railroad grade crossing and endangering children are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court properly applied R.C. 4511.63 in convicting appellant of failure to stop at a railroad grade crossing. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/6/2026
|
2/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-372 |
|
In re C.C.
| 30542 | The trial court abused its discretion by denying the State’s motion for access to recorded phone calls at a juvenile detention center where the juvenile failed to raise any expectation of privacy in the recorded phone calls and the trial court found that it was in the interest of public safety to locate the stolen firearms. Judgment reversed to the extent that it overruled the State’s motion but affirmed in all other respects. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/6/2026
|
2/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-374 |
|