|
|
Wilson v. Cannon
| C-250474 | CHILD SUPPORT — CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES — SERVICE OF PROCESS — PERSONAL JURISDICTION — ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION — DUE PROCESS — RESTITUTION — EQUITABLE DEFENSES — PLAIN ERROR — TRANSCRIPTS — MAGISTRATES: The trial court plainly erred by denying father’s request to set aside an administrative child-support order, which father asserted was void for lack of proper service, on the ground that father had actual notice or that father had unreasonably delayed seeking vacatur. The trial court plainly erred by denying father’s request for restitution for payments made under an allegedly void order on the ground that such a request was categorically improper. The court of appeals could not hold that the trial court plainly erred in adopting certain evidentiary determinations by the magistrate where father neither objected to the magistrate’s decision nor provided the juvenile court with a transcript of proceedings before the magistrate, where the record clearly showed that mother had submitted evidence in the form of testimony, and where father cited no rule that required the juvenile court to rule against mother based solely on her failure to file an opposition memorandum | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/11/2026
|
9/11/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3552 |
|
State v. Jimenez
| C-250542 | RAPE — CONFRONTATION CLAUSE — TESTIMONIALITY — EXPERT TESTIMONY — R.C. 2907.27 — HARMLESS ERROR — DUE PROCESS — INTERPRETERS — ACCESS TO EVIDENCE — JURY WAIVER — R.C. 2945.05 — CRIM.R. 23(A) — MANIFEST WEIGHT — CREDIBILITY: The trial court erred in overruling defendant’s Confrontation Clause objection to an expert witness’s testimony regarding reported laboratory test results, where the analysts who prepared the report would have reasonably believed it would be used at a subsequent trial, and where those analysts were not subject to cross-examination. Although the admission of the laboratory test results showing that defendant and victim had tested positive for the same sexually-transmitted infection violated the Confrontation Clause, the error was harmless because, even without the improperly admitted results, the evidence of defendant’s guilt—including the credible testimony of his victim—was overwhelming. Defendant was not denied due process where defendant spoke only Spanish and his interpreter could not hear portions of the video evidence, because the factfinder had just as much trouble hearing as defendant’s interpreter and defense counsel had received the video in discovery. Even though defendant did not speak English, he failed to show that his jury waiver was invalid because (1) he had signed the English-language waiver form, consistent with R.C. 2945.05, (2) he had acknowledged in open court and through an interpreter that he had a right to a jury trial and that he wished to waive it, and (3) he offered no additional evidence to rebut the presumption of his waiver’s validity. Defendant’s convictions for rape were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where victim’s testimony specifically and credibly described both instances of rape, and where defendant could provide only highly-improbable ulterior motives to explain why victim might have lied. | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/11/2026
|
9/11/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3553 |
|
State v. Spurling
| C-250225 | FAILURE TO COMPLY — R.C. 2921.331 — SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM — SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — VOLUNTARY CONFESSION — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Defendant’s conviction for failure to comply was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the State presented evidence that defendant was driving the car when police signaled to stop. Defendant’s conviction for failure to comply is a felony where the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant’s driving created a substantial risk of serious physical harm by speeding, disobeying traffic signals, and weaving between cars even though there were no near collisions with other vehicles. The trial court did not err in admitting defendant’s filmed confession where the State presented evidence that showed by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s confession was voluntary: defendant was alert and sitting upright and his behavior did not indicate that he was under the influence. Trial counsel was not ineffective where the record demonstrated that there was no reasonable probability a motion to suppress defendant’s confession would have been successful, as the evidence showed defendant’s statements were voluntary. | Nestor | Hamilton |
9/11/2026
|
9/11/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3551 |
|
State v. Trevino
| C-250382 | BATSON CHALLENGE — PEREMPTORY STRIKE — JURY: The trial court erred when it denied the defendant’s Batson challenge when the State’s explanation for its peremptory strike of a black female juror was insufficiently race-neutral because of (1) the disconnect between the prosecutor’s explanation and the actual facts of the case, (2) the lack of meaningful questions to the juror to support the prosecutor’s explanation, (3) the prosecutor’s failure to strike a prospective white juror with the same concerns, (4) the prosecutor’s use of multiple peremptory challenges to strike nearly all black jurors from the jury, and (5) the prosecutor’s reliance on group bias in the absence of any evidence the group trait applied to the struck juror. [But see DISSENT: The trial court’s determination that the peremptory challenge was not motivated by discriminatory intent was not clearly erroneous where the trial court evaluated the State’s race-neutral explanation and found the explanation to be credible and based on the potential juror's responses during voir dire.] | Kinsley | Hamilton |
9/9/2026
|
9/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3526 |
|
Braucher v. Durrani
| C-250100, C-250357 | CIV.R. 50(B) — JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT — CIV.R. 59(A) — MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL — CONSOLIDATED TRIALS — CIV.R. 42 — COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT — EXPERT TESTIMONY — EVID.R. 702 — HARMLESS ERROR — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT — R.C. 2323.43 — CATASTROPHIC INJURY — SETOFF — PREJUDGMENT INTEREST — CUMULATIVE ERROR: The court correctly instructed the jury and did not abuse its discretion when it did not issue defendants’ proposed jury instructions concerning defendant doctor’s absence from trial. The trial court did not err by admitting expert opinion testimony where the expert was qualified to testify to the standard of care when dictating surgical notes or whether defendant doctor exaggerated or fabricated imaging findings. While the trial court erred by admitting improper expert opinion testimony, the error was harmless where the challenged testimony was echoed by other expert testimony, including, in one instance, defendants’ own expert. Although the trial court improperly joined plaintiffs’ claims for trial under Civ.R. 42, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that defendants were prejudiced and therefore that error was harmless. [See CONCURRENCE IN JUDGMENT ONLY: The rationale of Wilson v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-2279 (1st Dist.), relied on by the majority in its Civ.R. 42 analysis, is incorrect.] The cumulative effect of the evidentiary errors at trial did not warrant reversal of the trial court’s judgment. The trial court erred in its judgment permitting plaintiff to recover the higher cap of $500,000 on noneconomic damages because she did not present sufficient evidence under R.C. 2323.43(A)(2) to support the trial court’s award. The trial court erred in denying defendants’ request for a setoff where this court has held that intentional tortfeasors are entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A). The trial court did not err in awarding past medical damages where (1) defendants did not specifically argue that plaintiff provided no evidence of the amount of her past medical expenses and (2) defendants waived this issue on appeal when they stipulated to the amount of the medical expenses at trial. | Moore | Hamilton |
9/4/2026
|
9/4/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3467 |
|