|
|
State v. K.L.Q.
| 24AP-342 | The trial court erred by precluding defendant-appellant’s expert witness from addressing the issue of substance abuse, which the state’s expert put forward as a potential explanation for defendant-appellant’s psychotic symptoms, despite the absence of any evidence that he had engaged in substance use around the time of the charged offenses. The defense did not attempt to present a new opinion from its expert at trial, contrary to Crim.R. 16(K), but sought simply to clarify and provide context for its expert’s existing opinion, as fully set out in his written report, and to explain why defendant-appellant’s history of substance use did not play into that opinion. Based solely on the record as it exists for purposes of this appeal, the trial court’s judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment reversed. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2491 |
|
State v. Harris
| 24AP-457 | MANIFEST WEIGHT — VEHICULAR HOMICIDE: Defendant’s conviction for vehicular homicide was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant stipulated to driving the vehicle that caused the death of a pedestrian without a valid driver’s license, defendant admitted in unsworn statements to speeding and having bad brakes, and the state presented eyewitness testimony and video footage depicting defendant running a red light at a high rate of speed and driving into the pedestrian in a crosswalk without attempting to brake or swerve to avoid striking him, thereby exhibiting a substantial lapse from due care. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2492 |
|
Free State of Bavaria Represented by the Univ. of Wurzburg v. Ohio State Univ.
| 24AP-515 | The trial court did not err in finding the absence of a fiduciary duty owed by The Ohio State University ("OSU") because OSU never had an obligation to act on behalf of the University of Wurzburg (“UW”). OSU did not have a duty to disclose material facts and there was no evidence of reckless behavior by OSU. The trial court correctly found that the constructive fraud claim failed because OSU had no duty to disclose material facts. There was no support to apply German law and UW’s claim for damages was speculative. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2493 |
|
Adams v. Rakestraw
| 26AP-684 | Union County Court of Common Pleas erred in granting appellees’ motion to change venue and in ordering action transferred to Franklin County; judgment of Union County Court of Common Pleas reversed, judgment of Franklin County Court of Common Pleas vacated; cause remanded to Union County Court of Common Pleas | Leland | Franklin |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2494 |
|
State v. Stout
| 24AP-750; 24AP-751 | On appeal from a guilty plea to violation of a protection order and stipulation to violating community control from a previous conviction. The trial court did not ask for an explanation of the circumstances of the misdemeanor offense as required by R.C. 2937.07. The court did not inform the defendant that a guilty plea to the petty misdemeanor offense would be a complete admission of guilt as required by Crim.R. 11(B) and (E). However, the defendant did not articulate prejudice, and none was apparent in the record. The trial court’s addition of certain community control conditions was in response to a joint recommendation, and any potential error was therefore invited. The court’s unilateral addition of one year of community control was outside the defendant’s presence and without notice. Judgment regarding community control violation modified in part to remove additional year of community control and affirmed as modified. Judgment for subsequent conviction affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2495 |
|