|
|
State v. Tolbert
| 115545; 115546; 115547 | Jury instructions; civil immunity; R.C. Ch. 2744; R.C. 9.86; R.C. 2945.67(A); acquittal; double jeopardy. Trial court erred in instructing jury about civil-immunity doctrines and by relating those instructions to the credibility of individual witnesses in a criminal case where defendants had claimed that testifying law-enforcement officers had subjected them to a retaliatory criminal investigation. Because of double jeopardy, judgment of acquittal was unaffected by the discretionary appeal that was afforded to the State. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
9/3/2026
|
9/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3438 |
|
In re Y.D.
| 115687 | Right to counsel; due process; private custody proceeding; drug and alcohol testing; reasonable suspicion; psychological testing. Trial court’s decision to proceed with trial in absence of Father’s retained counsel deprived Father of his right to fair trial. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
9/3/2026
|
9/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3440 |
|
Bundy v. Rock Entertainment Group
| 115866 | Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); R.C. 4112.02(I); judgment entry; expert report; retaliation; protected opposition activity. The trial court’s judgment entry granting the defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment was sufficient even though it did not include language indicating that defendants were “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees because plaintiffs-appellants failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs-appellants were engaged in protected activity, which is the first element to establish a prima facie case for retaliation. Plaintiffs-appellants failed to demonstrate that they suffered prejudice when the trial court failed to grant their motion to exclude defendants-appellees’ expert report and testimony since the outcome would have been the same whether or not the trial court had relied on it. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
9/3/2026
|
9/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3441 |
|
State v. Moore
| 115937 | Preindictment delay; actual prejudice; motion to sever; Crim.R. 14; “joinder test”; simple and direct testimony; Confrontation Clause; Evid.R. 403(A); objective-witness test; harmless error; cumulative error; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court properly denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss because of a preindictment delay because the appellant failed to establish the delayed indictment caused him actual prejudice. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion to sever the cases of two victims because the State introduced simple and direct testimony. Testimony from a forensic nurse was not subject to the Confrontation Clause and thus did not violate appellant’s right to confrontation. Testimony from a forensic nurse was admitted under a hearsay exception and, if the testimony was erroneously allowed, the act constituted harmless error. Absent error on any of appellant’s assignments of error, there could not be a finding of cumulative error. Our review of the record reflects that there was competent, credible evidence to support the verdict, and we cannot say the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2) and 16(A)(7), this court disregarded appellant’s arguments where he presented no case law or analysis in support of the arguments. | Clary | Cuyahoga |
9/3/2026
|
9/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3442 |
|
In re Y.D.
| 115956 | Imputed income; pro se; child support; discovery; good cause; continuance; voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed; abuse of discretion; App.R. 16; R.C. 3119.01(C); potential income. The father attributed quotations to an Ohio Supreme Court case that did not originate from the case thereby failing to support his argument with any citations to authority. The trial court did not err when it found that the father was voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed. However, the trial court did abuse its discretion when it imputed income to the father without evidence in the record to support the trial court’s determination of the amount it imputed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the father’s day-of-trial motion for a continuance to obtain further discovery. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
9/3/2026
|
9/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3443 |
|