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 180 rows. Rows per page: 
1234
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Greene 2021-CA-48The trial court did not err by failing to give the jury a sua sponte aggravated assault instruction as there was no evidence presented of serious provocation or “mutual combat.” Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 7/1/2022 7/1/2022 2022-Ohio-2311
State v. Holycross 2022-CA-4The trial court erred in failing to advise appellant at sentencing that a post-release control violation could result in the parole board’s imposing an additional prison term of up to one-half of the stated prison term. Judgment reversed with respect to the imposition of post-release control and remanded for resentencing to impose post-release control properly. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 7/1/2022 7/1/2022 2022-Ohio-2312
In re Adoption of J.A.M. 2022-CA-14The probate court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Stepmother’s petition to adopt her stepson. Mother provided the court with material evidence relating to the best interest of her son. Further, Mother established that the least detrimental available alternative for her son was to have an opportunity to renew his relationship with Mother, which would be foreclosed if her parental rights were terminated through an adoption. The probate court considered all of the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 3107.161(B). Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 7/1/2022 7/1/2022 2022-Ohio-2313
State v. McGinnis 29404Despite the trial court’s imprecision when informing appellant of the distinctions between a guilty plea and a no contest plea, the record reflects that appellant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 7/1/2022 7/1/2022 2022-Ohio-2314
State v. Rasheed 29411Appellant’s convictions for aggravated menacing and assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the victim’s testimony and video evidence showed that appellant punched her, threw her onto a glass table, and threatened to kill her. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 7/1/2022 7/1/2022 2022-Ohio-2315
State v. Thompson 2022-CA-3Appellant’s sentence of a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 15 years in prison for rape was not contrary to law. His argument that his sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 is precluded by State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 7/1/2022 7/1/2022 2022-Ohio-2316
Animal Control v. Keller 2021-CA-34; 2021-CA-35; 2021-CA-36The trial court erred in journalizing sentences in three cases that differed from the sentences it had pronounced at the appellant’s sentencing hearing. Judgments reversed and remanded for resentencing.TuckerGreene 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2164
State v. Boyle 2022-CA-7Appellant’s “Motion for Fraud Upon the Court” was correctly construed by the trial court as a petition for post-conviction relief. It was both successive and untimely, as it was filed over eight years after his conviction. Furthermore, because the untimeliness of appellant's motion was not excused under R.C. 2953.23(A), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it and properly overruled it on that basis. Judgment affirmed.DonovanGreene 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2165
State v. Burke 29256The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress, as the police did not improperly extend the duration of a lawful stop of appellant’s vehicle. Moreover, police may detain a stopped driver beyond a normal time frame if they encounter additional facts giving rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity beyond that which prompted the initial stop. Such facts existed here. The police officer also had probable cause to search based on his observation of marijuana shakes on appellant’s person, his perception of a marijuana odor emanating from appellant’s person and the car trunk, and appellant’s admission that he had smoked marijuana earlier in the evening, which all occurred before a dog alerted to drugs during a free-air sniff. Given these holdings, it is unnecessary to consider whether a dog’s free-air sniff is insufficient grounds for probable cause due to the legalization of hemp or medical marijuana, which may result in the dog’s inability to distinguish between legal and illegal substances. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2166
Evans v. Evans 2022-CA-5The trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of a brother (appellee) against his sister (appellant) based on an alleged oral contract to reimburse funeral expenses, where both the magistrate and the trial court explicitly relied on evidence that the sister promised to reimburse her brother after he had made the payment. However, since the record contains evidence that the sister’s promise to reimburse also was made before the brother’s payment of funeral expenses, the matter will be remanded for the trial court to determine, in the first instance, whether the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the sister also made her promise to reimburse her brother before he made the payment to the funeral home. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisGreene 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2167
State v. Gause 29162The warrantless pinging of appellant’s cellphone was permissible because exigent circumstances existed, namely that appellant had shot the victim in front of two witnesses and fled the scene. Because exigent circumstances existed justifying the warrantless “ping” of appellant’s cellphone, trial counsel’s decision not to file a motion to suppress the cellphone site location information was not unreasonable and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s conviction for murder was not against the manifest of the evidence; the evidence at trial established that appellant was the individual who fired the gun used to kill the victim. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2168
State v. Graf 29202The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion. The trial court violated appellant’s due-process right to a fair trial by improperly evaluating the credibility of her trial testimony based on its prior out-of-court observations of her behavior. Judgment reversed and remanded for a new trial.TuckerMontgomery 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2169
State v. Somerset 29249After conducting an independent review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the court finds the appeal is frivolous and there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2170
State v. Gray 29320Appellant’s conviction on two counts of menacing was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2171
State v. Dixon 29324This is appellant’s eighth appeal regarding his 2006 convictions for complicity to commit aggravated robbery, complicity to commit aggravated burglary, complicity to commit felonious assault, and three attendant firearm specifications. The trial court properly overruled appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea and vacate the convictions. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2051
State v. Haralson 2021-CA-38The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress drug evidence that was discovered on appellant’s person and in his residence during the execution of a search warrant. The search warrant was not improperly executed, as it was not unlawful for the officers to execute the search warrant before filing it with the clerk of court. In addition, the search warrant’s supporting affidavit included a request to search appellant’s person and alleged facts that provided a substantial basis to conclude that there was probable cause to search appellant’s person for evidence of drug trafficking. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMiami 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2052
In re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Adelaide 2022-CA-1R.C. 3705.15 is a correction only statute. Where appellant petitioned for an amendment of the sex marker on her birth certificate, the probate court lacked authority under R.C. 3705.15 to grant the petition. Judgment affirmed.LewisClark 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2053
In re M.W. 29413The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Mother legal custody of the parties’ minor child, thereby reunifying her with the child following an adjudication of neglect and dependency. The record supports the trial court’s analysis of the statutory best-interest factors. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2054
State v. Kennard 29201The trial court’s findings that appellant had committed domestic violence and assault were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; after merger of the offenses, appellant was properly convicted of domestic violence. Appellant’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by having him testify at trial lacks merit because such a decision is a matter of trial strategy that cannot form the basis of an ineffective assistance claim. Additionally, appellant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of his right not to testify at trial is a matter outside the record that cannot be raised on direct appeal. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2055
State v. Leamman 2021-CA-30; 2021-CA-35Application of the Reagan Tokes Act to appellant at sentencing did not violate his right to due process, trial by jury, or the separation-of-powers doctrine. Defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to object to appellant’s being sentenced under the Reagan Tokes Act’s indeterminate-sentencing scheme. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s plea-withdrawal motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2057
Pruitt v. Pruitt 29331Husband’s appeal of the property division in a divorce decree was not moot where Wife’s evidence failed to demonstrate that he had satisfied that portion of the judgment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to compensate Husband for Wife’s claiming their minor son as a dependent for tax purposes during the pendency of the divorce or in allocating the debt on his credit cards solely to him, except for $1,500. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to address disputed property that Wife took from the marital home during the pendency of the case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in designating Wife as residential and custodial parent of the minor child or in its determination of Husband’s parenting time. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.EpleyMontgomery 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2058
State v. Tate 29301After conducting an independent review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find no issues with arguable merit for appeal. The record reflects that the trial court fully complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(E) and that appellant entered his guilty plea to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily in Case No. 2021-CR-2172/1. Furthermore, appellant was afforded all of his due process protections before the trial court revoked his community control on unrelated felony counts in Case Nos. 2020-CR-2589 and 2020-CR-177 and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 18-months. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2059
State v. West 2021-CA-17The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the State on its vexatious litigator complaint and by designating appellant a vexatious litigator, where the State satisfied its burden to establish that no genuine issue of material fact existed for trial. The trial court’s summary judgment ruling was not premature and did not deny appellant his right to discovery. Appellant’s claim that the vexatious litigator statute is unconstitutional also lacks merit, as it is well established that the statute is constitutional in its entirety. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2060
State v. Winters 29157Appellant’s conviction for disorderly conduct was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, but because the complaint only alleged a minor misdemeanor level of the offense, her conviction is modified from a fourth-degree misdemeanor to a minor misdemeanor. Trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to file a request for discovery. The 30-day suspended jail sentence is vacated because no jail term may be imposed for a minor misdemeanor. Judgment vacated in part and affirmed as modified.LewisMontgomery 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2061
Clements v. Brown 29311Appellant cannot challenge on appeal the trial court’s issuance of a civil stalking protection order when she failed to file objections to the court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision as required by Civ.R. 65.1(G). Even if she could challenge it, the trial court did not err in granting the civil stalking protection order after the parties consented in writing to enter it. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1959
Coldly v. Fuyao Glass America, Inc. 29309The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against appellant, who had sued his employer for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Appellant, an at-will employee, failed to satisfy the “jeopardy” element that must be met to maintain such actions. While appellant claimed that his employer failed to provide a safe workplace as required by R.C. 4101.11 and R.C. 4101.12, appellant did not make clear to his employer when he complained about another employee that he was invoking a governmental policy as the basis for his complaint, rather than his own self-interest. Appellant gave the employer no indication that his complaint concerned the public at large rather than himself. Because this failure was fatal to appellant’s claim, we need not address issues concerning the other elements needed to establish wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1960
State v. Dennison 2021-CA-42Appellant entered guilty pleas, and the trial court considered the recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 in imposing sentence. Pursuant to State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a mechanism for this court to modify or vacate appellant’s sentence. The trial court did not violate appellant’s right to appeal, right to trial by jury, right to counsel, right to due process, or the separation of powers in imposing an indefinite sentence pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law. Judgment affirmed.DonovanChampaign 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1961
State v. Harsh 29337Appellant’s guilty plea waived any error regarding the trial court’s determination of his competency to stand trial, and, even if this were not so, the record reveals no error relating to this issue. There is also no evidence of insanity in the record. Appellant consulted his counsel frequently and asked the trial court thoughtful questions regarding the plea proceedings. At no point during the plea hearing did appellant indicate that he lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings or the implications of his guilty plea. The record establishes that appellant had a rational understanding of the plea proceedings and the charge against him. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1962
Moreno v. Soto 2021-CA-44The trial court did not err in filing a divorce decree based on an agreement of the parties that was read into the record. Most matters that appellant alleges on appeal are based on evidence that is not in the trial court record and cannot be considered. In addition, while appellant claims fraud, she failed to file a motion with the trial court related to the alleged fraud before judgment was entered. As a result, appellant’s proper remedy would be a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). The few items that can be considered on appeal do not demonstrate error, and in one of these instances, even if error occurred, it was harmless. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1963
State v. Rider 2021-CA-12Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of murder, felonious assault, and numerous other offenses. The trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the inferior offenses of aggravated assault and voluntary manslaughter or on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record does not support appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1964
State v. Roush 2021-CA-9Appellant claims that the trial court failed to properly impose postrelease control at sentencing. Because appellant has completely served her prison sentences in this case and she is not on postrelease control, the appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed.EpleyGreene 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1965
State v. Allen 2021-CA-31 & 2021-CA-32The trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(E) when it failed to inform appellant that his guilty plea constituted a complete admission of guilt. Additionally, the trial court erred when it provided appellant with material misinformation regarding the maximum sentence he faced if he pled guilty to three “petty offense” misdemeanors. Judgments reversed, pleas vacated, and remanded for further proceedings.DonovanMiami 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1872
State v. Buckley 2021-CA-9Anders appeal. We find no meritorious issues for appeal. Appellant had an extensive criminal history, and his sentence was not contrary to law. The court did not err in conducting the plea hearing via video conferencing since appellant was incarcerated in Indiana, and appellant did not object to that procedure. Judgment affirmed.DonovanDarke 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1873
Cerise Capital L.L.C. v. Dewberry 29248Landlord’s appeal from the denial of its request for restitution of its commercial premises is moot where tenants have vacated the premises. Appeal dismissed. (Welbaum, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)EpleyMontgomery 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1874
State v. Davis 29243The trial court did not err by failing to suppress evidence and statements that were obtained by police officers who entered appellant’s hotel room and asked appellant if he had any weapons. The officers’ entry into appellant’s hotel room was constitutionally permissible because the officers entered to execute a valid arrest warrant. The officers’ question about weapons was constitutionally permissible under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule. Whether a search of the hotel room nightstand was constitutionally permissible was not raised by appellant during the trial court proceedings and is therefore waived for appeal and otherwise lacks merit. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., dissenting.)WelbaumMontgomery 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1875
State v. Fleming 2021-CA-40After merger of possession and trafficking offenses, appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and aggravated trafficking in drugs (methamphetamine). The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence; the police officer had reasonable articulable suspicion that appellant was driving without a valid license, and after learning that appellant was subject to an arrest warrant, the officer lawfully found drugs on appellant’s person during a search incident to his arrest. Appellant’s convictions for trafficking in drugs were based on insufficient evidence. The jury could not have reasonably inferred that he was trafficking the small amount of drugs on the date of the offense based on text messages from a few weeks earlier that showed he was a drug dealer. Judgment reversed; remanded for resentencing on the possession offenses.EpleyClark 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1876
In re V.D. 29366The clear and convincing evidence of record supported the juvenile court’s finding that the minor child was neglected and dependent where the child was behind developmentally and the child’s mother had unresolved mental health issues. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by finding that it was in the best interest of the child to be placed in the temporary custody of a public children services agency. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1877
State v. Martin 2021-CA-58The trial court did not err in imposing a 36-month prison term for appellant’s third-degree felony conviction. The trial court examined the record and concluded that a 36-month sentence was consistent with the purposes of felony sentencing and was appropriate in light of the statutory seriousness and recidivism factors. Ohio law precludes us from independently weighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for the trial court’s regarding a sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed.LewisClark 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1879
McCullough v. Bennett 29390The trial court erred in finding the statute of limitations had expired where Ohio’s savings statute, R.C. 2305.19, applied and extended the time for appellant to file a third complaint. The savings statute was not rendered inapplicable by the fact that the statute of limitations had not yet expired when appellant’s second complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The savings statute also applied because appellant’s second complaint was dismissed without prejudice or “otherwise than upon the merits.” In addition, appellant did not “use” the savings statute when he filed his second complaint. At that point, the original statute of limitations had not yet expired, meaning there was no time bar from which to “save” appellant. Finally, even if it could be said that appellant “used” the savings statute when he filed his second complaint, no reasonable justification exists for applying a one-use rule to preclude him from invoking the savings statute to file his third complaint. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1880
Simon v. Larreategui 2021-CA-41In this manufacturing defect suit, the trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as the appellees presented evidence that supported their tort claim. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion when it overruled three objections at trial. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted appellees prejudgment interest, because it reasonably found that appellant had not rationally evaluated its risk and potential liability. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMiami 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1881
Brentlinger v. Winsupply, Inc. 29283The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee-ex-employer on appellant’s Family and Medical Leave Act interference claim, where appellant failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether she was incapacitated due to a serious medical condition. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1779
State v. Hodge 29147The trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant’s request for a jury instruction on self-defense after appellant testified that the victim’s severe burns were caused when he raised his arm to block the victim’s attempt to pour a pot of hot grease on him. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to give a jury instruction on the defense of accident, because appellant testified he knowingly used force to block the pot. The State did not violate appellant’s right to remain silent where appellant testified at trial and a few questions relating to his pre-arrest silence were used in an attempt to impeach his credibility rather than to prove his guilt. Appellant did not show that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on an accident defense or failing to request a curative instruction relating to appellant’s right to remain silent. The trial court committed plain error by failing to merge the offenses of felonious assault and domestic violence as allied offenses of similar import. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1780
In re D.F. 29350The trial court granted permanent custody of appellant’s two minor children to a public children services agency. The record clearly and convincingly establishes that the children had been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more months out of a consecutive 22-month period and that an award of permanent custody to the agency was in the children’s best interest. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1781
State v. Johnson 29336The trial court’s imposition of a maximum 180-day jail sentence for receiving stolen property was not an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1782
State v. Smith 2021-CA-56Appellant’s prison sentence for endangering children was not contrary to law. Her challenges to her sentence are precluded by State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1783
State v. Spaulding 2021-CA-55The trial court did not err in imposing a 36-month prison term for the appellant’s third-degree felony conviction. The trial court examined the record and concluded that a 36-month sentence was consistent with the purposes of felony sentencing and was appropriate in light of the statutory seriousness and recidivism factors. Ohio law precludes us from independently weighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for the trial court’s regarding a sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed.LewisClark 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1784
State v. Windsor 2021-CA-25The trial court erred by failing to specify the total number of days of jail-time credit that appellant had earned as of the date of his sentencing. The trial court’s failure to specify the total number of days of jail-time credit, coupled with the absence of any opportunity for appellant to be heard on that issue, warrants remanding the matter to the trial court so that the court can properly address appellant’s jail-time credit. Judgment reversed as to jail-time credit and remanded for the trial court to specify appellant’s total number of days of jail-time credit. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1785
State v. Wright 2021-CA-17In a jury trial on three counts of rape (child under 13), the trial court did not err in admitting hearsay evidence, and plain error is not demonstrated. Law enforcement witnesses did not improperly vouch for the victim’s credibility. The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of the State’s expert witness (without objection), and the testimony did not exceed the scope of the expert’s report. Prosecutorial misconduct is not demonstrated in closing argument regarding touch DNA evidence and appellant’s experience as a police officer. The prosecutor’s remarks in closing about the victim did not urge sympathy for her independent of the evidence, and the prosecutor did not express an opinion regarding the victim’s credibility or improperly inflame the jury. Appellant was not denied the right to present a meaningful defense; his expert witness testified that the victim’s normal exam should be considered along with her reported lengthy history of penetrative abuse. Plain error is not demonstrated in the court’s jury instruction regarding the hymen. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in defense counsel’s failure to object to hearsay, failure to challenge the State’s experts pursuant citing to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), or in defense counsel’s cross-examination of witnesses. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and cumulative error is not demonstrated. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMiami 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1786
Beard v. Dir. of Job & Family Servs. 29298The decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission, which found that appellant quit work without just cause, was not unlawful or unreasonable, nor was it against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/20/2022 5/20/2022 2022-Ohio-1690
State v. Curtis 2021-CA-19The trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Contrary to appellant’s claim otherwise, the trial court’s history-of-criminal-conduct finding under section (c) of that statute was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. The appellant’s prison sentence was also not otherwise contrary to law. Judgment affirmed; remanded for the sole purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry that accurately reflects the history-of-criminal-conduct findings that the trial court made at the sentencing hearing.WelbaumMiami 5/20/2022 5/20/2022 2022-Ohio-1691
1234