|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Gochenouer
| 9-23-77 | JURY INSTRUCTIONS; ABUSE OF DISCRETION. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on abandonment of property as a defense to theft because the evidence adduced at trial was not sufficient to require the requested jury instruction. | Zimmerman | Marion |
7/22/2024
|
7/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2768 |
|
State v. Brisco
| 1-23-48 | R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c); Sleep. Conviction for rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) was supported by the evidence where victim testified she was sleeping and awakened to defendant penetrating her vagina. | Baldwin | Allen |
7/15/2024
|
7/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2675 |
|
State v. Stinebaugh
| 2-22-27 | R.C. 2921.42(A)(1); Public Contract; R.C. 2921.41(A)(1); Theft in Office; Sufficient Evidence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Courts may consult the opinions of the Ohio Ethics Commission as a source of persuasive authority. To violate R.C. 2921.42(A)(1), the public official must have a legal interest in the public contract that is definite and direct. The OEC has described an interest as a right or claim. To establish a theft offense in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), the State must establish that the defendant obtained or exerted control over property or services without the consent of the person authorized to give consent. To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must establish that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that such performance prejudiced the Defense. | Willamowski | Auglaize |
7/15/2024
|
7/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2677 |
|
State v. Smith
| 1-23-21 | BINDOVER; R.C. 2151.12; AMENABILITY AND REHABILITATION; SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION; R.C. 2151.23(H); PROBABLE CAUSE TO TRANSFER; SUPPRESSION; MIRANDA; 5TH AMENDMENT; COERCION; DUE PROCESS VOLUNTARINESS; 14TH AMENDMENT. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by transferring defendant-appellant’s case to the general division for defendant-appellant to be tried as an adult. Because the aggravated-murder and aggravated-robbery charges are based on the January 20, 2020 conduct that was alleged in the complaint filed in the juvenile court, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over those charges. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement because defendant-appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and his statements were not involuntary. | Zimmerman | Allen |
7/15/2024
|
7/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2674 |
|
State v. Williams
| 1-23-56 | Petition for Post-Conviction Relief; Res Judicata; Evidentiary Hearing; Untimely Petition. Res Judicata prevents a petitioner from relitigating matters that were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal. Petitions for Post-Conviction Relief are subject to the strict timeliness requirements in R.C. 2953.21(A). Unless a petitioner can demonstrate that a timeliness exception in R.C. 2953.23(A) is applicable, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to consider an untimely petition. | Baldwin | Allen |
7/15/2024
|
7/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2676 |
|
State v. Platfoot
| 17-23-19 | Misdemeanor Sentencing; R.C. 2929.21. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant-appellant to 120 days in jail for the first-degree misdemeanor offense. The record supports that the trial court was guided by the overriding principles and purposes of misdemeanor sentencing, in accordance with R.C. 2929.21. | Miller | Shelby |
7/15/2024
|
7/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2681 |
|
State v. Evans
| 11-23-09 | Crim.R. 32.1; Post-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea. The trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendant-appellee's post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea without affording the appellant-State of Ohio an opportunity to respond to the motion and without holding a hearing thereon. | Waldick | Paulding |
7/15/2024
|
7/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2679 |
|
State v. Lister
| 3-23-23, 3-23-24 | Abuse of discretion; Judicial Release; Community Control Violation; Prison Term. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the defendant-appellant’s judicial release and reimposing the balance of his prison sentence. The trial court did not err by imposing a prison term as a result of defendant-appellant’s violation of the terms of his community control. | Miller | Crawford |
7/15/2024
|
7/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2678 |
|
State v. Paxson
| 15-23-10 | Imposition of Maximum Sentence; Right to Appeal Under R.C. 2953.08. Although defendant had an appeal as of right pursuant to R.C. 2953.08, this Court lacks the authority to consider the application of the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12 and the purposes and principles of sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.11. The sentence was within the statutory range, so was not contrary to law. | Willamowski | Van Wert |
7/15/2024
|
7/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2680 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 6-23-15 | Waiver of Mandatory Fine; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Presentence Motion to Withdraw Plea. Defendant-appellant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. | Miller | Hardin |
7/8/2024
|
7/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2611 |
|
State v. Buckner
| 15-23-08 | CRIM.R. 16(I); FAILURE TO DISCLOSE WITNESS; CRIM.R. 29(A); SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing an undisclosed witness to testify. Even though the state failed to disclose the witness’s name and address on its witness list, the trial court’s decision to allow the undisclosed witness to testify at trial was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. The defendant-appellant’s conviction for menacing is based on insufficient evidence because the state failed to present any evidence to establish the fear-of-physical-harm element. As to the defendant-appellant’s conviction for improper use of a 911 system, the state presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the defendant-appellant knowingly called 911 for a purpose other than obtaining emergency service. | Zimmerman | Van Wert |
7/8/2024
|
7/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2615 |
|
State v. Finchman
| 9-23-68 | FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because the sentence is within the permissible statutory range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The trial court did not err in rejecting the parties' joint-sentencing recommendation of community control and imposing a 15-month prison term for fourth-degree felony strangulation. The trial court forewarned defendant-appellant of the maximum penalty and that it was not bound to follow the parties’ joint-sentencing recommendation. | Zimmerman | Marion |
7/8/2024
|
7/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2613 |
|
State v. Jeanneret
| 8-23-24; 8-23-25 | Maximum Sentence; Consecutive Sentences. Trial court did not err by imposing maximum sentences or consecutive sentences, particularly given defendant's lengthy criminal history. | Waldick | Logan |
7/8/2024
|
7/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2612 |
|
State v. Cass
| 10-23-08 | R.C. 2941.25; Allied Offenses; Merger; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2); Sentencing; R.C. 2921.12; Tampering with Evidence; Corpus Delecti Rule; Duplicity. Defendant-appellant did not establish plain-error relief was warranted regarding the trial court not merging offenses for which he was convicted. The trial court did not err in its sentencing notifications. The evidence to sustain Defendant-appellant's conviction for tampering with evidence was legally sufficient. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecution to present certain admissions, which defendant-appellant had made to the police, at the time those admissions were presented at trial. Defendant-appellant did not establish plain-error relief was warranted regarding alleged duplicity of a count in the indictment. | Miller | Mercer |
7/8/2024
|
7/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2614 |
|
State v. Montgomery
| 3-23-16 | Felony-Murder; Confrontation Clause; R.C. 2903.02; R.C. 2923.03; Aiding or Abetting. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of a testifying codefendent regarding his potential motive to lie. Defendant-appellant's conviction for felony-murder was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Crawford |
7/1/2024
|
7/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2520 |
|
State v. Pinyerd
| 3-23-20 | Witness Disclosure; Crim.R. 16; R.C. 2903.01; Aggravated Murder. Defendant-appellant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion, when the trial court permitted the prosecution to present the testimony of a witness at trial who was disclosed as a witness one week before trial. Defendant-appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Crawford |
7/1/2024
|
7/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2521 |
|
State v. Rosas
| 3-23-42 | Sufficiency; Ineffective Assistance; Mistrial. Burglary conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for mistrial. | Waldick | Crawford |
7/1/2024
|
7/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2522 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 1-23-16 | Manifest weight of the evidence; recross-examination. The jury's guilty verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the trial court did not err in not permitting recross-examination of a prosecution witness. | Zmuda | Allen |
7/1/2024
|
7/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2518 |
|
State v. Riley
| 1-23-62 | Endangering children; Involuntary Manslaughter; Merger. The trial court did not err in failing to merge the defendant-appellant's two convictions for sentencing. | Baldwin | Allen |
7/1/2024
|
7/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2519 |
|
State v. Davis
| 9-23-50 | Sufficiency; Manifest Weight; Jury Instructions; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Evidence supported conviction for receiving stolen property. Jury instruction regarding knowingly was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. | Waldick | Marion |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2400 |
|
Stratton-Phillips v. Phillips
| 8-23-27, 8-23-30 | Divorce; Income calculation; R.C. 3119.05. The trial court erred in basing child support and spousal support orders on an income calculation that was not done pursuant to R.C. 3119.05. | Waldick | Logan |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2399 |
|
Freytag v. Freytag
| 17-23-14 | Marital Property; Separate Property; Valuation; Manifest Weight; Continuance; Self-Representation. Pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as litigants with retained counsel and must accept the consequences of his or her own mistakes. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital. The party arguing that property is separate bears the burden of establishing that asset is not marital. Appellate courts review the classification of property under a manifest weight standard. Appellate courts review the valuation date of an asset under an abuse of discretion standard. | Willamowski | Shelby |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2403 |
|
State v. Hill
| 16-23-07; 16-23-08; 16-23-09 | POST-SENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA; CRIM.R. 32.1 RES JUDICATA; KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY PLEA; CRIM.R. 11; JUDICIAL RELEASE; REAGAN TOKES LAW. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's post-sentence motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. | Zimmerman | Wyandot |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2402 |
|
Holland v. Jones
| 1-23-80 | Motion to Dismiss; Summary Judgment. Summary judgment properly awarded where no genuine issue of material fact was presented with regard to former property owner allegedly committing fraudulent misrepresentation. | Waldick | Allen |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2398 |
|
State v. Raines
| 14-23-40 | Appellate sentencing review; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b); Maximum sentences; Consecutive sentences. The judgment of sentence entered in the trial court is affirmed as the record does not establish that maximum and consecutive sentences imposed were clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Union |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2401 |
|
State v. Crumpler
| 3-23-10 | Manifest Weight; Deadly Weapon; Firearm. The judgment of the trial court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when he was found to have attempted to cause physical harm with a deadly weapon when the defendant repeatedly struck the victim in the head with the butt of a firearm. Item's status as a "firearm" can be proven by the circumstantial evidence despite the fact that the item was not recovered. | Willamowski | Crawford |
6/17/2024
|
6/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2309 |
|
State v. Williams
| 13-23-32 | Sufficiency of the evidence; Manifest weight of the evidence; Importuning; R.C. 2907.07(D)(2); Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor; R.C. 2923.02; R.C. 2907.04(A); Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles; R.C. 2907.31(A)(1); Possessing Criminal Tools; R.C. 2923.24(A). The four convictions of the defendant-appellant were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Waldick | Seneca |
6/17/2024
|
6/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2307 |
|
State v. Lambert
| 9-23-76 | FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because his sentence is within the sentencing range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Marion |
6/17/2024
|
6/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2308 |
|
Auck v. Stump
| 3-23-45 | Civ.R. 56(A); Civ.R. 60(B). Where trial court granted summary judgment on a Civ.R. 60(B) claim without any analysis other than referring to Appellee's motion, we are unable to conduct meaningful review. | Waldick | Crawford |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2220 |
|
State v. Thoman
| 3-23-43 | Manifest Weight, Community Control Violation. Trial court's judgment finding that that defendant violated the terms of his community control is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Willamowski | Crawford |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2219 |
|
State v. Heffley
| 1-23-66 | 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) empowers state to remove a federal firearms disability | Gwin | Allen |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2218 |
|
State v. Smith
| 4-23-05 | Allied Offenses of Similar Import; Merger; Aggravated Robbery; Felonious Assault; Sufficiency of the Evidence; Manifest Weight. Defendant-appellant's aggravated robbery and felonious assault charges are not allied offenses of similar import because they were committed with different animus. Defendant-appellant's aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and firearm specification convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Defiance |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2221 |
|
State v. Saunders
| 9-23-58 | R.C. 2945.482; Confrontation Clause; R.C. 5123.01; Developmental Disability. Defendant-appellant's right to confrontation was not violated during the trial, when the victim testified by closed-circuit television from a different room than where defendant-appellant and the jury were present. The testifying victim qualified as a developmentally-disabled person, pursuant to R.C. 2123.031, and the requirements of R.C. 2945.482(D) were met. | Miller | Marion |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2224 |
|
In re R.W.
| 9-23-45 | Juvenile court; Dependency proceeding; R.C. 2151.04; Clear and convincing evidence. The trial court did not err by determining that the child was an abused and dependent child. | Miller | Marion |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2223 |
|
State v. Smead
| 8-23-23 | Speeding; R.C. 4511.21(D). Trial court properly found appellant guilty of speeding. | Waldick | Logan |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2222 |
|
State v. Eller
| 5-23-46; 5-23-47 | Trial court erred by imposing time served to one sentence only when the sentences were concurrent. | Willamowski | Hancock |
6/3/2024
|
6/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2121 |
|
State v. Cowan
| 1-23-20 | Weight; Prosecutorial Misconduct; Juror Misconduct | Gwin | Allen |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2028 |
|
State v. Hall
| 1-23-32 | Manifest Weight; Sufficiency of the Evidence | Gwin | Allen |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2029 |
|
State v. Bocook
| 3-23-41 | KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY PLEA; CRIM.R. 11; POST-RELEASE CONTROL; SENTENCING. The defendant-appellant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because the trial court properly notified the defendant-appellant of post-release control at the combined change-of-plea and sentencing hearing. | Zimmerman | Crawford |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2030 |
|
In re Adoption of S.T.B.
| 9-23-60 | Consent to adoption; R.C. 3107.05; Justifiable cause for lack of contact with child; Manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's judgment finding the biological mother's consent was required for the adoption of her child was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Waldick | Marion |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2031 |
|
State v. Burse
| 1-23-13 & 1-23-14 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; TRAFFICKING IN HEROIN; BULK AMOUNT; REAGAN TOKES. The defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-heroin conviction is based on sufficient evidence. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law based on the authority endorsing Ohio’s Reagan Tokes Law. | Zimmerman | Allen |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2027 |
|
State v. Call
| 9-23-75 | FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because her sentence is within the sentencing range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Marion |
5/20/2024
|
5/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1944 |
|
State v. Addiego
| 7-23-09 | STATE’S APPEAL; INDICTMENT DISMISSAL; DISCOVERY VIOLATION; CRIM.R. 16. The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment in this case. | Zimmerman | Henry |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1849 |
|
Hough v. Plaza St. Fund 64, L.L.C.
| 5-23-45 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE; ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES; SLIP AND FALL. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees because there is no genuine issue of material fact that the defendants-appellees owed a duty to the plaintiffs-appellants. The trench was an open and obvious hazard and there are no attendant circumstances which would warrant an exception to the open and obvious doctrine. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1847 |
|
In re A.G.
| 5-23-29 | Permanent Custody; Hearsay; Reasonable Efforts. Permanent custody finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Waldick | Hancock |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1846 |
|
State v. Gunther
| 7-23-08 | STATE’S APPEAL; INDICTMENT DISMISSAL; DISCOVERY VIOLATION; CRIM.R. 16. The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment in this case. | Zimmerman | Henry |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1848 |
|
State v. Hill
| 7-23-17 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; Appellate Review. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because it would find that the considerations contained in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 weigh against the sentence imposed by the trial court that is within the statutorily authorized range. | Willamowski | Henry |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1850 |
|
Debold v. Siesel Distrib., L.L.C.
| 13-23-26 | Summary Judgment; Recreational Activity; Primary Assumption of the Risk; Negligence; Negligent Entrustment, Loss of Filial Consortium. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on negligence claim resulting from accident where tube being pulled by a snowmobile struck an object. Driver was a 10 year old minor, so cannot be negligent. Additionally, as it was a recreational activity, the injured 12-year-old assumed the risk of the crash. No evidence was presented that the driver behaved recklessly. Negligent entrustment claim fails because there was no underlying liability. Claim for loss of filial consortium is a derivative claim that fails because there could be no liability on the underlying claims. | Willamowski | Seneca |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1851 |
|
State v. Rose
| 1-23-02 | Batson Claim. Defendant-appellant's counsel's failure to respond to the government's race-neutral explanation for exercising its preemptory strike indicated he no longer disputed the strike. Even assuming defendant-appellant still disputed the strike, the trial court's ruling was not clearly erroneous; the record does not support finding that the State was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. | Miller | Allen |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1845 |
|
GROB Sys., Inc. v. McDermott
| 5-23-44 | Bench Trial; Manifest Weight; Contract; Breach; Damages. Trial court's determination to prorate damages for breach of contract was supported by the evidence. | Waldick | Hancock |
5/6/2024
|
5/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1734 |
|