|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Bell
| C-210494 | COUNSEL – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – SELF-DEFENSE: Where defendant did not demonstrate that trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, defendant failed to show ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court did not err in instructing the jury on self-defense where the instructions were drawn from the Ohio Jury Instructions and were correct statements of the law. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/29/2023
|
3/29/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1010 |
|
State v. Stanford
| C-220138 | CONSTITUIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – FOURTH AMENDMENT – SEARCH AND SEIZURE In a criminal prosecution for drug trafficking and possession, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress items police recovered from defendant’s vehicle after a drug dog alerted on defendant’s vehicle where police stopped defendant’s vehicle because it matched a description of a vehicle that had been involved in a recent shooting; the drug dog arrived on the scene contemporaneously with the initial stop; police used the drug dog to sniff a grassy area near the vehicle based on an officer’s belief that defendant had thrown an object out of the vehicle window; and once the drug dog completed searching the hill, and after officers spoke with detectives regarding the shooting investigation, police immediately used the drug dog to sniff defendant’s vehicle. | Winkler | Hamilton |
3/29/2023
|
3/29/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1011 |
|
Cincinnati v. Fourth Natl. Realty, L.L.C.
| C-220209 | CIVIL PROCEDURE – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL – FIRST AMENDMENT – FREE SPEECH – COMMERCIAL SPEECH – SIGN/ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS – LEAST-RESTRICTIVE MEANS: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for leave to amend and supplement its answer and counterclaims after the parties had filed competing motions for summary judgment and defendant could not justify its one-year delay in seeking leave. Defendant’s free-speech rights were not violated by plaintiff city’s zoning code that restricted off-site signs in plaintiff’s downtown development district because the zoning-code restrictions targeted commercial speech, the restrictions directly advanced plaintiff’s substantial interests in aesthetics and safety, and the restrictions were no more extensive than necessary. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/29/2023
|
3/29/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1012 |
|
State v. Deloney
| C-220433 | INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY – ATKINS HEARING – APPELLATE REVIEW: We affirm the trial court’s judgment determining that defendant suffers from an intellectual disability and is thus ineligible for the death penalty where the state failed to raise an argument on appeal and the trial court’s findings were supported by competent, credible evidence. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/29/2023
|
3/29/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1013 |
|
State v. Bishop
| C-220231 | ALLIED OFFENSES — R.C. 2941.25 — NO-CONTACT ORDER — SENTENCING: The trial court did not err by convicting defendant of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery after defendant entered guilty pleas because the offenses were not allied of similar import where each offense generated its own separate and identifiable harm, where the aggravated robbery, committed when the defendant struck the victim in the head with a rock in the garage, caused a serious head injury that was life altering and bore a significance apart from the injuries inflicted when defendant punched and kicked the victim in the kitchen during the aggravated burglary. | Winkler | Hamilton |
3/24/2023
|
3/24/2023
| 2023-Ohio-947 |
|
State v. Childers
| C-220301 | CONSTITTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – TRAFFIC VIOLATION: The trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress a gun found in his glove compartment where the police officer observed defendant change lanes without using his turn signal and this observation justified the stop of defendant’s vehicle. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/24/2023
|
3/24/2023
| 2023-Ohio-948 |
|
In re L.P.
| C-220396, C-220397, C-220398, C-220399, C-220400, C-220401, C-220402, C-220403, C-220404, C-220405, C-220406, C-220407, C-220408, C-220409, C-220410, C-220411, C-220412, C-220413, C-220414 | R.C. 2151.356 – JUVENILE – RECORD SEALING – EXPUNGEMENT: The juvenile court erred when it did not seal and expunge applicant’s juvenile adjudication as an unruly child. The juvenile court did not err when it denied appellant’s applications to seal and expunge juvenile records based on a finding of insufficient rehabilitation where the juvenile court found that appellant had a lengthy adult criminal record. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/24/2023
|
3/24/2023
| 2023-Ohio-949 |
|
Garry v. Borger
| C-220069 | JURY SELECTION — IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESS — REBUTTAL TESTIMONY — CUMULATIVE ERROR: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to excuse two jurors for cause, as the decision to remove a juror for cause is within the sound discretion of the trial court which determined that the prospective jurors could adequately fulfill their duties. Where the applicable requirements under the Rules of Evidence were not met because defendant was not questioned about his statement so he never denied making a statement, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a rebuttal witness to impeach defendant’s testimony. Where the case lacked numerous errors that deprived plaintiff of a fair trial, the plaintiff failed to establish cumulative error. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/22/2023
|
3/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-905 |
|
State v. Rasheed
| C-220194 | R.C. 2907.06 — SEXUAL IMPOSITION — EVIDENCE VIDEO — AUTHENTICATION — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT : While the trial court abused its discretion by admitting improperly-authenticated video about which the victim had no personal knowledge and could not testify to how the surveillance system runs, the error was harmless because defendant’s conviction for sexual imposition was overwhelmingly supported by the remaining evidence. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/22/2023
|
3/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-906 |
|
Smith v. SOCI Petroleum, Inc.
| C-220245 | CIV.R. 60(B) — JURISDICTION: Where appeals in the case were completed, the trial court erred when it determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. | Winkler | Hamilton |
3/22/2023
|
3/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-907 |
|
State ex rel. Foster v. Luebbers
| C-220250 | WRIT OF MANDAMUS: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s application for a writ of mandamus and dismissing his case where the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ because defendant requested that the court issue the writ to a court of the same rank. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/22/2023
|
3/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-908 |
|
State v. Jones
| C-220007 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CRIMINAL COUNSEL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – FOURTH AMENDMENT– PROTECTIVE SWEEP – INEVITABLE DISCOVERY Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of a consent search and protective sweep of the home. [But see DISSENT: The defendant did not meet his burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel because the record does not show that counsel’s alleged deficient performance rendered the result of the proceedings unreliable or fundamentally unfair.] Defendant demonstrated arguable merit to his claim that consent to search the home provided to the officers was a product of coercion, and the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, where officers told a resident of the home they were “doing a search warrant” before receiving consent. Defendant demonstrated arguable merit to his claim that a protective sweep of the home lacked justification, and the seizure of a safe discovered in the course of the protective sweep violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, where there were no specific and articulable facts to support a belief that a person was in the home and the protective sweep was consistent with a routine practice. [But see DISSENT: The police officers had articulable facts, which taken together with reasonable inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbored an individual posing dangers to those at the scene, particularly given the danger involved in investigating drug activity and the danger inherent in the confines of a house or otherwise on an “adversary’s turf.”] Application of the inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule was not proper where the state failed to show that the safe would have been discovered apart from the unconstitutional search where the record contains no indication that the officers were attempting to secure a warrant to search the house. [But see DISSENT: Even if the protective sweep was improper, the discovery of the safe was inevitable given the facts and circumstances known to the police before they entered the residence where the officers had probable cause to obtain a warrant and where they would have been justified in freezing the scene to prevent any destruction of evidence while they waited for a warrant.] | Bock | Hamilton |
3/17/2023
|
3/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-844 |
|
In re M.D.
| C-220052, C-220053, C-220054, C-220055, C-220056 | FIFTH AMENDMENT – MIRANDA RIGHTS – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL COUNSEL – PREJUDICE – PLAIN ERROR – AGGRAVATED ROBBERY – R.C. 2911.01 – TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE – R.C. 2921.12(A) – OBSCTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS – R.C. 2921.31 – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY - MANIFEST WEIGHT The juvenile failed to establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for failing to raise arguments in a motion to suppress because, although trial counsel’s assistance was deficient for failing to argue that the juvenile requested an attorney, the juvenile failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if trial counsel had not been deficient. The juvenile failed to demonstrate that the juvenile court committed plain error because, although the juvenile court contravened Juv.R. 22(D)(3)’s requirement that it hold a hearing on the juvenile’s motion to suppress, the juvenile failed to show that the error affected the outcome of the trial. The juvenile’s delinquency adjudications for three charges of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(a)(1) were supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence where victim and officer testimony and the juvenile’s statements connected the juvenile to all three robberies. Juvenile’s delinquency adjudication for tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) was supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence where the juvenile court found the officer’s testimony credible, and the officer’s testimony established that the juvenile was carrying a gun, knew an investigation was pending, and discarded the gun. The juvenile’s delinquency adjudication for obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A) was supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence where the officer’s testimony, which was deemed credible by the juvenile court, established that the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify a Terry stop of the juvenile, and the juvenile ran from officers after the officers identified themselves as police and instructed the juvenile to stop. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/17/2023
|
3/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-845 |
|
State v. Brooks
| C-220102 | JURY WAIVER – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – SUFFICIENCY: Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional right to a jury trial where the record reflects that defendant waived his right to a jury trial prior to trial, signed the jury-waiver form, engaged in a colloquy with the court, and reaffirmed, in open court, that he understood his right to a jury trial and voluntarily waived it, and the written waiver was promptly journalized once the court discovered the waiver had not been journalized before the start of the trial. Defendant’s convictions for felonious assault and improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the factfinder found the victims’ testimony established that defendant fired the gun at the home where they were standing and the factfinder found the victims’ testimony to be more credible than defendant’s alibi testimony. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/17/2023
|
3/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-846 |
|
State v. Denson
| C-220208 | BATSON CHALLENGE – EVIDENCE; WITNESS; TRIAL: The trial court’s determination that the striking of an African-American potential juror was not motivated by discriminatory intent was not clearly erroneous because the race-neutral reason offered by the prosecution for the use of a peremptory challenge was reasonably related to the response given by the potential juror during voir dire. The witnesses did not vouch for the victim’s veracity where the witnesses did not offer an opinion as to the truth of the sexual-abuse allegations. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/17/2023
|
3/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-847 |
|
State v. Rosemond
| C-220235 | PRESENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA – SENTENCING: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the presentence motion to withdraw the plea because defendant did not have a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw the plea. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a basis for the appellate court to review a sentence where defendant argues that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/17/2023
|
3/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-848 |
|
State v. Fleming
| C-220275 | VIOLATING A PROTECTION ORDER - EVIDENCE -SUFFICIENCY: Defendant’s conviction for violating a protection order was based on insufficient evidence because the state did not show that defendant recklessly violated the terms of the protection order where the state did not meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was served with the protection order. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
3/17/2023
|
3/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-849 |
|
State v. Prather
| C-210585 | COMPETENCY – TESTIMONY – ADMISSIBILITY – COUNSEL – HEARSAY – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – AGGRAVATED ROBBERY – FELONIOUS ASSAULT – HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER A DISABILITY – ALLIED OFFENSES: The trial court did not err in admitting the competency report prepared three months before the competency hearing when defendant requested that the hearing be continued. Where the excluded testimony was not included in the record on appeal to allow the appellate court to determine whether the trial court erred in excluding the testimony, the appellate court must presume the regularity of the trial court’s ruling and cannot determine that the trial court erred. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the photo lineup because the lineup was provided by the state in discovery and the administration of the lineup complied with the statute; defense counsel was not ineffective for untimely disclosing a witness where defendant did not timely inform counsel of the witness; and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the defendant’s confession because the interrogation was not coercive. The trial court erred in allowing the hearsay testimony of a witness, but the error was harmless because it did not affect the outcome of the trial. Defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and having weapons while under a disability were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that defendant attempted to rob then shot one victim, provided the gun used to rob and shoot a second victim, and committed an armed robbery against a third victim. The trial court did not commit plain error by imposing multiple sentences for aggravated robbery and felonious assault where the offenses were committed separately. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/15/2023
|
3/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-784 |
|
State v. Jackson
| C-210634 | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – R.C. 2919.25 – PHYSICAL HARM – SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE : Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence presented established that defendant knowingly caused physical harm to his wife by hitting, grabbing, and squeezing her arms and by scratching her chest. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/15/2023
|
3/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-785 |
|
State v. Taylor
| C-220226 | EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – SENTENCING: Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence was not against the weight of the evidence where the factfinder found the victim’s testimony to be more credible than defendant’s testimony. The trial court erred in imposing a no-contact order when the defendant was not placed on community control. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/15/2023
|
3/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-786 |
|
Harmon v. Cincinnati
| C-220236 | CIVIL SERVICE – JURISDICTION – R.C. 2506.01 – R.C. 4117.10 The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the city’s civil service commission under R.C. 2506.01 where the decision appealed from should have been made at a quasi-judicial proceeding: where the city’s civil service rules require the civil service commission to set an employee’s appeal of a layoff for a hearing and where an employee files a notice of appeal with the commission stating that he is appealing a layoff, cites or describes a violation of the civil service rule governing layoffs, and requests a hearing, the civil service commission must follow its own rules and set the matter for a hearing. Where the collective-bargaining agreement between the city and plaintiffs-employees’ labor union provides for final-and-binding arbitration of grievances but specifically retains an employee’s right to individually challenge the procedural aspects of the employee’s layoff with the city’s civil service commission and any employment action not specifically set forth in the agreement, R.C. 4117.10, which restricts the remedies available for contesting employment decisions, did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the employees’ administrative appeal. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/15/2023
|
3/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-788 |
|
Yung v. UC Health, L.L.C.
| C-220386 | MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – EXPERT TESTIMONY – PRIMA FACIE CASE: The trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of medical defendants on plaintiff’s medial malpractice claim where plaintiff’s expert, an ENT doctor, offered testimony concerning the standard of care and breach of that standard by an MRI technician in protecting plaintiff’s ears during an MRI procedure: the doctor’s expertise in the standard of care for ear protection appropriately overlapped the MRI technician’s expertise in properly protecting a patient’s ears during an MRI.. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/15/2023
|
3/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-789 |
|
State v. Mitchell
| C-210623 | SPEEDY TRIAL – GUILTY PLEA – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE - CUMULATIVE ERROR: Defendant waived his right to a speedy trial by entering a guilty plea. Defendant’s guilty plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently where the trial court strictly complied with the notification requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and substantially complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b) and defendant’s alleged confusion as to the nature of his plea was contradicted by the record. Defendant’s guilty plea to a nonexistent charge under Ohio law was valid because a person may enter a plea to a nonexistent offense as part of the plea-bargaining process. Defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective because counsel’s performance was not deficient where counsel recommended a guilty plea to a lesser offense and did not pursue a weak claim of a speedy-trial violation, and where defendant has not shown any prejudice from counsel’s performance. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/10/2023
|
3/10/2023
| 2023-Ohio-724 |
|
State v. Cole
| C-220184 | ATTEMPTED ASSAULT – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – SUFFICIENCY – PLAIN ERROR: Defendant’s attempted-assault conviction was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court based its finding of guilt on uncontroverted testimony of the victim. It was not plain error for the trial court to consider excluded hearsay statements during sentencing where defendant rebutted the accuracy of the statements during allocution and there was no showing of prejudice because defendant received the requested sentence. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/10/2023
|
3/10/2023
| 2023-Ohio-725 |
|
Meyer Tool, Inc. v. Mikrolar, Inc.
| C-220290 | CONTRACTS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on a breach of contract claim where defendant’s defenses of prevention of performance, exceeding a reasonable time to demand performance, and abandonment were without merit. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/8/2023
|
3/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-704 |
|
State v. Dickey
| C-220536 | DENIAL OF BAIL - CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE - R.C. 2937.222: The trial court erred when it denied defendant bail when the state did not present any evidence at the hearing where it was required to produce “clear and convincing evidence” pursuant to R.C. 2937.222 | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/8/2023
|
3/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-705 |
|
State v. Ekouevi
| C-220267 | JURISDICTION – MOOT – SENTENCING: Defendant’s appeal was moot where defendant, convicted of a misdemeanor offense, voluntarily paid the imposed fine and court costs despite obtaining a stay from the trial court and failed to present evidence from which an inference could be drawn that a collateral disability would be suffered. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
3/8/2023
|
3/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-703 |
|
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Tye
| C-220071 | APPELLATE REVIEW – MAGISTRATE’S DECISION The trial court’s entry was not a final appealable order in a residential foreclosure case where the trial court failed to rule on defendant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision and where the court simply adopted the magistrate’s decision and final decree in foreclosure without setting forth any details of the decree, such that the parties could not determine their rights and obligations without reference to the magistrate’s decision. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/3/2023
|
3/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-637 |
|
State v. Danner
| C-220190 | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - COHABITATING - EVIDENCE -SUFFICIENCY - MANIFEST WEIGHT - R.C. 2919.F(1) and (2) : Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence was based on sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state established that defendant and his victim had been living together for at least a year, and therefore, cohabitating within five years prior to the incident pursuant to R.C. 2919.F(1) and (2). | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/3/2023
|
3/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-638 |
|
State v. Mills
| C-220439 | BAIL - R.C. 2937.222: Where the record contained sufficient evidence in support of the trial court’s findings of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2937.222(B) to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard, the trial court did not err in granting the state’s motion to hold defendant without bail. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/3/2023
|
3/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-639 |
|
State v. Merz
| C-220085 | SENTENCING – ALLIED OFFENSES — MERGER – SEX-OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION – JAIL-TIME CREDIT The trial court erred in imposing concurrent sentences and two sex-offender classifications for defendant’s convictions of abduction and gross sexual imposition where the appellate court had previously determined that the offenses should have merged for sentencing, State v. Merz, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200152, 2021-Ohio-2093, because imposing concurrent sentences is not the equivalent of merging allied offenses, and sex-offender classification tiers are part of a criminal sentence. In calculating jail-time credit, the trial court must credit defendant for the total number of days he served in the local jail for any reason arising out of the offense, including days served prior to resentencing, but the trial court properly did not include time served in prison because the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction tracks and credits that time. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/1/2023
|
3/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-582 |
|
State v. Neal
| C-220195 | OVI – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT The state presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain defendant’s convictions for OVI, failure to maintain reasonable control, and refusing an OVI test, where a witness saw defendant in the driver’s seat of a wrecked car after hearing a crash mere minutes before, notwithstanding two occupants of the vehicle exiting from the car. Defendant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court found the car’s two occupants’ testimony to be incredible. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/1/2023
|
3/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-584 |
|
State v. Walton
| C-220201 | FELONIOUS ASSAULT – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim testified that defendant shot him, the court found the victim’s testimony credible, and the only witness to give contradictory testimony made multiple inconsistent statements. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/1/2023
|
3/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-585 |
|
State v. Henderson
| C-220216 | AUTOMOBILES/CRIMINAL — COUNSEL — IDENTIFICATION —EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT: Defendant failed to establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for failure to file a motion to suppress identification evidence because it was unlikely that the motion, if filed, would have been granted, notwithstanding the use of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure, because based on the totality of the circumstances, including that the police officer who made the identification had a good look at defendant while pursuing him during an investigation, the officer’s prior description was accurate and consistent with the photo he was shown only one day after the incident, and the officer was “[one] hundred percent” certain of his identification, the identification was reliable and trustworthy. Defendant’s convictions for driving with expired license plates, driving under suspension, and failing to stop after an accident were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where identification testimony that defendant was the driver of a vehicle involved in the offenses was reliable and credible. | Winkler | Hamilton |
3/1/2023
|
3/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-586 |
|
State v. Dixon
| C-220234 | APPELLATE REVIEW — RECORD SEALING — R.C. 2953.32 — R.C. 2953.36(A)(7) — ELIGIBILITY : The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s application to seal the record of a conviction for child endangering where the state objected to the sealing on the ground that the victim was under the age of one, rendering defendant statutorily ineligible under R.C. 2953.36(A)(7), and defendant failed to present a record demonstrating error in the proceedings below. | Winkler | Hamilton |
3/1/2023
|
3/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-587 |
|
In re C Children
| C-220532 | CUSTODY – PARENTAL TERMINATION – COUNSEL – WAIVER. In a permanent custody case, the juvenile court erred in determining that legal custodian maternal grandmother waived her right to counsel, notwithstanding her firing of three attorneys, where the magistrate failed to communicate to her the dangers of proceeding without counsel. [But see DISSENT: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying grandmother’s day-of-trial request for a continuance under R.C. 2151.352 where the record shows that grandmother obtained and fired three, separate appointed attorneys and subsequently failed to appear at the next three hearings, including the final pretrial hearing, and grandmother arrived late to the permanent-custody trial, which was already in progress, and requested a continuance to obtain private counsel.] | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/1/2023
|
3/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-588 |
|
In re A.B.
| C-220577 | PARENTAL TERMINATION – PERMANENT CUSTODY – INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN: The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where the child had been in the custody of HCJFS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, father did not have an approved home study under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, the child did not have a bond with father, the child did not express any interest in being placed with father, and father did not follow the case plan’s direction to complete a parenting class for special-needs children. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/1/2023
|
3/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-589 |
|
Riverside Drive Ents., L.L.C. v. Geotechnology, Inc.
| C-220099 | EXPERT TESTIMONY – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – CIV.R. 26 – MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the expert affidavit filed by plaintiffs in response to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, because it was untimely and was not a proper supplement to the initial expert reports. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants where plaintiffs did not put forth the required expert testimony on the applicable standard of care, which was required to create a genuine issue of material fact and where plaintiffs did not disclose their intent to use certain experts of defendants. The trial court did not err in considering plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration where it was filed after the court orally announced its decision, but before the court journalized its final judgment entry or in denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration where plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the proffered basis for reconsideration would have impacted the court’s conclusion because the court stated several other reasons for striking plaintiffs’ affidavit. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/1/2023
|
3/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-583 |
|
State v. Stewart
| C-220300 | COMMUNITY CONTROL REVOCATION – NO CONTEST PLEA – EVIDENCE The trial court properly accepted defendant’s no contest plea to a community control violation where the court complied with minimum due process requirements. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that defendant violated the terms of his community control where substantial evidence was presented by the state to establish the violation. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
2/24/2023
|
2/24/2023
| 2023-Ohio-542 |
|
State v. Harris
| C-220251 | JURISDICTION – POSTCONVICTION – COURT COSTS – CRIMINAL FINES – RES JUDICATA – MOOTNESS – APPELLATE JURISDICTION: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s motion to vacate his court costs under R.C. 2947.23(C) because defendant satisfied his court costs in 1992. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s untimely postconviction motion to vacate a $25,000 criminal fine because the motion was filed after the 365-day deadline established by R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a) had expired. The trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s request to vacate his criminal fines because defendant’s arguments could have been raised on direct appeal in 1992, and therefore, were barred by res judicata. Defendant’s challenge to alleged irregularities in the transfer of his case to a particular trial judge was not properly raised in a direct appeal of an order signed by that judge. Defendant’s arguments that the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts violated his constitutional rights by providing allegedly conflicting deadlines for filing his appellate brief and allegedly refusing to file his sentencing transcripts were not properly before the court and were made moot by an order of the court that extended his filing deadlines and confirmed that the transcript pages had been delivered. Defendant’s arguments that the trial court violated his constitutional right to an appeal when it failed to order service of its decision was made moot by this court’s consideration of defendant’s appeal. Defendant’s equal-protection claim failed because he failed to establish the elements of an equal-protection claim. | Bock | Hamilton |
2/22/2023
|
2/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-506 |
|
In re E.H.
| C-220079 | CUSTODY MODIFICATION – JUVENILE – R.C. 3109.04 – GUARDIAN AD LITEM – EVIDENCE The trial court’s failure to recite the legal standard of R.C. 3109.04(E)(1) in modifying a prior custody decree did not rise to the level of plain error where no manifest injustice occurred and nothing in the record suggested that the outcome of the proceedings would have differed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s motion to discharge the guardian ad litem and strike the guardian ad litem’s testimony and report from the record where the guardian ad litem sufficiently discharged her duties. The trial court did not err in finding that mother denied father’s parenting time where the court’s finding was supported by competent, credible evidence. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
2/17/2023
|
2/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-470 |
|
State v. Harrison
| C-220171 | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – EVIDENCE - MANIFEST WEIGHT – WITNESS Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, even though the victim was intoxicated at the time of the incident and gave muddled testimony during trial about when the incident occurred, where the victim was clear about how defendant harmed her and where a reporting officer corroborated the victim’s testimony. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
2/17/2023
|
2/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-471 |
|
State v. Mincey
| C-220061 | RAPE – SEXUAL BATTERY – OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – RAPE-SHEILD STATUTE – EXPERT TESTIMONY – HARMLESS ERROR – CUMULATIVE ERROR: It was harmless error when the trial court improperly admitted evidence that defendant had sexually abused the victim outside of Ohio where the out-of-state acts were substantially similar to the charged acts of rape and sexual battery in Ohio and played a relatively minor role in the victim’s overall narrative of events, the state did not emphasize the out-of-state acts in closing argument, and the remaining evidence of guilt was strong enough to stand on its own. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of defendant’s web-search history for pornography that bore a striking similarity to the charged acts of rape and sexual battery because such web searches were relevant to defendant’s state of mind. The trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the victim’s prior allegations of sexual abuse under the rape-shield statute because nothing in the record supported defendant’s claim that the victim’s allegations were entirely false. It was harmless error for the trial court to admit expert testimony that the expert believed that sexual abuse had occurred based on nothing more than the victim’s statements because the state did not mention the expert’s testimony during closing argument and the other evidence against defendant was strong enough to stand on its own. The cumulative effect of the harmless errors during defendant’s trial were not so significant as to create a reasonable probability that the outcome would be different had none of the harmless errors occurred based on the lack of emphasis placed on the improperly admitted evidence by the state and the strength of the remaining evidence against the defendant. | Crouse | Hamilton |
2/17/2023
|
2/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-472 |
|
In re M.S.
| C-220105 & C-220119 | CHILDREN - CUSTODY - R.C. 2151.414 - CONTINUANCE: The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where the child had been in the custody of the agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, including noncontinuous periods of temporary custody, and permanent custody was in the child’s best interest because, though the child was bonded with mother and wished to be returned to her care after removal in 2016, mother was unable or unwilling to meet her own needs and was very unlikely to meet the significant mental-health issues of the child, issues that mother dismissed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion to continue the permanent-custody trial after mother failed to appear where mother, who had notice of the trial date from multiple sources and was responsible for prior continuances, never provided a reason for her absence, failed to express the length of the continuance requested, and failed to afford reasonable assurance that if a continuance were granted, she would appear for a new court hearing. | Winkler | Hamilton |
2/15/2023
|
2/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-431 |
|
State v. Assefa
| C-220062 | OVI – PROBABLE CAUSE – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – SUFFICIENCY: The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence stemming from a warrantless arrest where the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that defendant was under the influence of alcohol based on defendant’s physiological indicia, combative demeanor, colliding with a parked car, and refusal to submit to sobriety testing. Defendant’s OVI conviction was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court based its finding of guilt on credible testimony of the arresting officer and body-worn-camera video that supported the conclusion that defendant’s driving was appreciably impaired by alcohol. | Crouse | Hamilton |
2/10/2023
|
2/10/2023
| 2023-Ohio-385 |
|
Morelia Group-DE, L.L.C. v. Weidman
| C-220153 | IMMUNITY – R.C. 2744.03 – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS – JUDICIAL NOTICE – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE: The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings where plaintiff pled sufficient facts to overcome defendant’s claim of political-subdivision-employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). Judicial notice is inappropriate for facts in dispute, including when the alleged facts are documented in the minutes of a township board of trustees meeting. The court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review a claim of qualified privilege on interlocutory appeal under R.C. 2744.02(C). | Crouse | Hamilton |
2/10/2023
|
2/10/2023
| 2023-Ohio-386 |
|
In re A.W.
| C-220523 | CHILDREN – CUSTODY – R.C. 2151.414 – BEST INTEREST The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where the child had been in the custody of HCJFS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period with a single foster family, he was bonded with the foster family and the foster family wanted to adopt him, and mother had missed several drug screens, did not engage in mental health-treatment as directed, and failed to secure employment throughout the pendency of the case. | Crouse | Hamilton |
2/10/2023
|
2/10/2023
| 2023-Ohio-387 |
|
State v. McCoy
| C-220279 & C-220281 | REAGAN TOKES LAW – SENTENCING – MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas where the court sufficiently addressed the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240, 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995). The trial court properly imposed an indefinite sentence pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law as this court held that the Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional on its face in State v. Guyton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962, appeal accepted, 168 Ohio St.3d 1418, 2022-Ohio-3752, 196 N.E.3d 850. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
2/8/2023
|
2/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-361 |
|
Hillgrove v. Hillgrove
| C-220150 | FINAL ORDER - DIVORCE DECREE: An order denying relief from a divorce decree that was not final because the domestic relations court left unresolved the disputed ownership of certain real property is not a final appealable order. | Winkler | Hamilton |
1/25/2023
|
1/25/2023
| 2023-Ohio-198 |
|
State v. Benton
| C-210476 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — SPEEDY TRIAL – SIXTH AMENDMENT – PRESUMPTIVE PREJUDICE The trial court did not err by engaging in a constitutional speedy-trial analysis under Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), when it found that the six-and-a-half-month delay between the filing of the first-degree misdemeanor complaint and defendant’s arrest resulted in actual, not presumptive, prejudice to defendant. [But see DISSENT: Because the trial court found that the six-and-a-half-month delay in initiating the prosecution was not presumptively prejudicial, the trial court erred in analyzing the remaining Barker factors.] | Crouse | Hamilton |
1/20/2023
|
1/20/2023
| 2023-Ohio-153 |
|