|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Akins
| C-230302 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – VOIR DIRE – PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE – BATSON V. KENTUCKY – CONFRONTATION CLAUSE – EVIDENCE – MURDER – TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE – HAVING A WEAPON WHILE UNDER A DISABILITY –COUNSEL – EVID.R. 609 – EVID.R. 404 – MISTRIAL – SUPPRESSION – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT – SENTENCING – CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES – PROPORTIONALITY: The trial court properly overruled defendant’s Batson challenge where the prosecutor provided a race-neutral explanation and defendant makes no argument as to why that explanation was pretextual beyond arguing that the explanation would not support striking the juror for cause: The trial court properly resolved the Batson challenge procedurally where the trial court allowed defendant to respond to the state’s race-neutral explanation and then clearly rejected the challenge on the record. The trial court erred in admitting statements by a nontestifying witness in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United State Constitution, but the error was harmless because the erroneously admitted testimony was cumulative to other testimony and the other evidence presented established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s conviction for murder with a firearm specification was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where, though a masked shooter murdered the victim and no witness could identify the shooter, the evidence supported a reasonable inference that defendant was the masked shooter because the shooter was shot while escaping, defendant arrived at a hospital shortly after the murder with gunshot wounds, and defendant’s pants were stained with the victim’s blood. Defendant’s conviction for having a weapon while under a disability was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant’s conviction for murder with a firearm specification was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, defendant stipulated to having been convicted of a felony offense of violence and defendant stipulated that he was not relieved from the disability from that conviction. Defendant’s conviction for tampering with evidence was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence permitted an inference that defendant was the masked shooter and defendant threw his bloody clothes into a trash can, suggesting an intent to impair their ability to serve as evidence in the impending murder investigation. Defendant was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel where his trial counsel did not move for a mistrial after being denied the ability to cross-examine the state’s cooperating witness based on a prior conviction because the existence and nature of the witness’s conviction were brought out on direct examination and Evid.R. 404 bars defendant from using that conviction to argue the witness committed the murder because he committed a similar offense in the past. Defendant was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel where trial counsel failed to proactively attempt to suppress any evidence of defendant’s refusal to answer questions while in police custody because a failure to file a motion to suppress is not per se ineffective assistance and defendant was not prejudiced by trial counsel raising the issue during trial via an objection. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting defendant’s proposed jury instructions concerning the credibility of the state’s cooperating witness and instead providing the Ohio Jury Instruction where defendant was not entitled to the special instruction and cites no authority that his proposed instructions were correct statements of law or that the provided Ohio Jury Instruction was an incorrect statement of law. The state did not violate defendant’s right to a fair trial by calling defendant a contract killer during closing argument where the name-calling was improper and unnecessary but was one isolated comment during closing argument of a two-week long trial and the trial court promptly issued a curative instruction that the comment was not evidence. The state did not violate defendant’s right to a fair trial by commenting during the rebuttal portion of closing argument that defendant did not ask follow-up questions to witnesses on the contested issue of the identity of the masked shooter where the statements did not imply defendant had a burden of proof, were fair comments in response to defendant’s closing argument on what the witnesses testimony did and did not say about the identity of the masked assailant, and the trial court instructed the jury that the state bore the ultimate burden of proof. The trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences where the aggregate sentence of 21 years’ to life imprisonment was not disproportionate to defendant’s conduct and took into consideration defendant’s prior felony record and two prior prison terms. | Winkler | Hamilton |
4/19/2024
|
4/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1491 |
|
In re N. Children
| C-240061 | JUVENILE – PERMANENT CUSTODY – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – BEST INTEREST – R.C. 2151.413: The juvenile court properly granted permanent custody to the agency when clear and convincing evidence supported its finding that a grant of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was in the best interest of the children. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
4/19/2024
|
4/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1492 |
|
State v. Weaver
| C-230521 | SPEEDY TRIAL – SENTENCING – RAPE – R.C. 2929.14 – INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS: The trial court did not err in failing to dismiss defendant’s indictment for violation of his speedy-trial rights pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, where defendant waived the issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and by entering guilty pleas. The trial court did not err in running defendant’s sentences for rape and gross sexual imposition consecutively to each other and consecutively to his federal sentence because the aggregate sentence was within the statutory bounds of R.C. 2929.14 and was otherwise supported by clear and convincing evidence. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
4/17/2024
|
4/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1444 |
|
State v. Palmer
| C-230412 | RESTITUTION – EVIDENTIARY HEARING – DUE PROCESS –ECONOMIC LOSS – EVIDENCE: The trial court abused its discretion when ordering restitution where the victim did not appear at the restitution hearing, the state submitted unauthenticated exhibits in support of an award of restitution, and defendant raised significant questions as to the authenticity and relevance of the state’s restitution evidence: defendant was denied her due-process right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard because she was unable to cross-examine the victim about the unauthenticated exhibits submitted by the state. The trial court abused its discretion in ordering restitution where there was insufficient evidence in the record to show that the economic loss sustained by the complaining witness was a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s conduct. [But see DISSENT: Because this case was disposed on its merits, the due-process issue was moot, and the analysis regarding the right to compel a victim's testimony is dicta.] | Kinsley | Hamilton |
4/17/2024
|
4/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1445 |
|
David Rentals, L.L.C. v. Virginia Woods, L.L.C.
| C-230374 | CONTRACTS – REAL ESTATE – CIV.R. 15(E) – MATERIAL BREACH – ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY –R.C. 4735.21 : The trial court erred in dismissing the property owner’s supplemental counterclaim for slander of title brought against its property-management company on statute-of-limitations grounds because the supplemental counterclaim filed under Civ.R. 15(E) related back to the date of the property owner’s original counterclaim. The trial court’s determination after trial that the property owner materially breached the property-management contract by terminating the contract without giving the management company the required 60 days’ notice and that the management company did not anticipatorily repudiate the contract was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: the evidence presented at trial showed that the parties’ relationship began to deteriorate regarding financial issues, that the management company proposed a way to continue the relationship and the owner did not respond, and that the management company notified the owner that it would no longer perform repair work, which would require further extension of financial credit, but that it would continue to provide management duties. The trial court’s decision dismissing the property owner’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against the property-management company after trial was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: the property owner claimed that the management company’s decision to hire a registered sex offender as a caretaker of the property placed tenants in danger, but the property owner failed to show that the caretaker’s placement caused any injury; the property owner claimed that the management company engaged in self-dealing by charging the property owner a commission for finding the caretaker as a tenant and by charging the owner for the caretaker’s labor, but the owner would have been responsible for both charges under the contract, and it just so happened that the management company found one person to fill both roles; the property owner claimed that the management company mishandled security deposits, but the trial court found in favor of the property owner on its breach-of-contract counterclaim for the mishandled security deposits, and the property owner did not show any damages separate from the breach-of-contract counterclaim. The trial court erred in failing to apply R.C. 4735.21 to the breach-of-contract claims brought by the property-management company, a limited liability company, against the property owner because a limited liability company qualifies as a “person” for purposes of R.C. 4735.21, and a person cannot seek recovery for real estate broker activities without first proving a valid real estate license under R.C. Chapter 4735. [But see DISSENT: The trial court did not err in holding that limited liability companies (“LLCs”) did not need to be licensed as real estate brokers to recover damages under R.C. 4735.21 for claims relating to real estate broker activities because the General Assembly did not include LLCs in the list of entities regulated by that statute and because an LLC does not qualify as a “person” under that statute based on the text and structure of the statute and the usage of those terms throughout the chapter.] | Winkler | Hamilton |
4/17/2024
|
4/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1446 |
|
Wynn v. Crumm
| C-230341 | PROBATE COURT – TRUSTS – TRUSTEE – DUTIES: The trust agreement is unambiguous in conferring the power upon the trustee to sell trust real estate and distribute the proceeds of the sale to the beneficiaries, therefore the probate court erred in determining that the trustee may not sell the trust real estate. | Crouse | Hamilton |
4/17/2024
|
4/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1447 |
|
In re R.R.
| C-230327 | JURISDICTION — UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT — R.C. 3127.16: The trial court correctly determined that it lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under R.C. 3127.16 when neither parent nor the child was “presently” residing in Ohio at the time that father filed a motion to have the matter transferred to the Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, which was presently exerting jurisdiction over the matter. | Zayas | Hamilton |
4/12/2024
|
4/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1382 |
|
S.W. Ohio Regional Transit Auth. v. Sweeten
| C-230365 | CIV.R. 59 —SMALL CLAIMS COURT — DISCOVERY: Where there was no irregularity in the proceedings before the magistrate by which defendant was prevented from having a fair trial, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. Where discovery was limited in small claims court and the evidence that was produced demonstrated that defendant was at fault for the accident, the trial court did not err in granting judgment in favor of plaintiff. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
4/12/2024
|
4/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1383 |
|
Manter v. CPF Senior Living – Northgate Park L.L.C.
| C-230478 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — R.C. CHAPTER 3721 — NEGLIGENCE — CONTRACTS — TORTS — INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: Where plaintiff raised factual disputes which were not relevant to resolving his claims, these were not material issues of fact under Civ.R. 56. Where defendant assisted living facility presented no evidence to support its position that it was licensed under R.C. 5119.34 and 5123.19, the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding it was were licensed under these statutory sections. Because plaintiff identified a source of duty independent of his contract with defendant, the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff’s negligence claim failed. Because a breach of contract by defendant did not create a tort claim, the trial court did not err in concluding plaintiff needed to identify a source of duty independent of his contract with defendant. Because genuine issues of material fact existed given discrepancies as to the kind of care plaintiff needed and actually received, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant as to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. Where defendant’s conduct did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to sustain an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on that claim. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
4/12/2024
|
4/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1385 |
|
Colerain Twp. v. AFSCME Ohio Council 8, AFL-CIO, Local 3553
| C-230377 | R.C. 2711.10(D) — ARBITRATION — COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT: In a dispute concerning a township employee’s termination, the trial court erred in vacating the arbitrator’s award of reinstatement and making the employee whole under R.C. 2711.10(D) where nothing in the collective-bargaining agreement prevented the arbitrator from awarding any remedy inherent within the relief requested in the employee’s written grievance in order to provide the employee with a full and adequate remedy under the provision of the collective-bargaining agreement relevant to the arbitrator’s decision. The trial court erred in vacating the arbitrator’s award under R.C. 2711.10(D) where it vacated the award due to a perceived error in the arbitrator’s exercise of her powers under the collective-bargaining agreement. | Zayas | Hamilton |
4/10/2024
|
4/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1352 |
|
State v. McClanahan
| C-230234 & C-230343 | CONTEMPT – CRIM.R. 36: The trial court abused its discretion when it found defendant in contempt in five cases, because each conviction was based on the same underlying behavior and the record does not reveal five acts that threatened the trial court’s administration of justice; therefore, defendant may only be convicted of one count of contempt for her behavior. Where the docket erroneously states that defendant was convicted by plea when the record clearly shows that defendant did not plead guilty to contempt, the cause must be remanded under Crim.R. 36 for correction of the record. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1288 |
|
State v. Davenport
| C-230353 | ENTRAPMENT — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS — IMPROPER HANDING OF A FIREARM IN A MOTOR VEHICLE: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant’s requested jury instruction on entrapment where defendant was charged with carrying concealed weapons and improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle because the defendant presented no evidence that the criminal design originated with the police or that the police induced him to place the firearms in his vehicle. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1289 |
|
State v. Wilson
| C-230447 | PLEAS – CRIM.R. 11: The trial court did not err in accepting defendant’s guilty pleas even though it sentenced defendant to a longer sentence than the sentence the state and defendant had agreed to where the trial court informed defendant prior to accepting his pleas that it was not bound by that agreement and defendant indicated that he understood. Defendant’s guilty pleas were not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily where the court completely failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C) by failing to inform defendant during the plea colloquy of the maximum sentence that could be imposed, and therefore, the pleas must be vacated. | Winkler | Hamilton |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1290 |
|
In re Y.H.
| C-230471 | JUVENILE — PROCEDURE/RULES — SANCTIONS : The juvenile court did not err by denying Father’s motion for sanctions under Civ.R. 37(D) for Mother’s failure to attend her deposition where its denial was based on Father’s lack of cooperation with Mother and his failure to take remedial action. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1292 |
|
State v. Hawkins
| C-230489 | SELF-DEFENSE — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — CRIM.R. 12.2 — COUNSEL: Although the trial court acted inconsistently in admitting and weighing defendant’s self-defense arguments despite holding them “waived” because defendant failed to file notice of self-defense as required by Crim.R. 12.2, the inconsistency was harmless because defendant did not show how he was prejudiced by it. Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel because of trial counsel’s failure to file a notice of self-defense as required by Crim.R. 12.2 because defendant did not show how he was prejudiced by the failure to file the notice. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
4/3/2024
|
4/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1253 |
|
State v. Hayes
| C-230437 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – PRIVATE SEARCH – WARRANTLESS SEARCH: The trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion to suppress where drugs were discovered by hospital staff in defendant’s backpack during a routine inventory, hospital staff gave defendant’s belongings to police, and the subsequent, warrantless police search did not exceed the scope of the private, nongovernmental search by hospital staff. | Crouse | Hamilton |
4/3/2024
|
4/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1254 |
|
In re L.B.
| C-230375 | JUVENILE — SEALING — EXPUNGMENT —RESTITUTION: The juvenile court erred in denying one of 20 applications for sealing and expungement of juvenile adjudications where the court used the applicant’s unpaid restitution as a ground for determining if the applicant was rehabilitated, and evidence established that the applicant was otherwise rehabilitated as demonstrated through the juvenile court’s granting the applicant’s 19 other applications for sealing and expungement. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/3/2024
|
4/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1255 |
|
State v. French
| C-230275 | ASSAULT — SELF-DEFENSE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — ABUSE OF DISCRETION — IMPEACHMENT — EVID.R. 609: Where defendant’s honest belief of imminent bodily harm was not objectively reasonable, the trial court did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice with respect to its finding that the state had disproven at least one element of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Where defendant’s counsel did not actually impeach the state’s witness regarding a prior criminal conviction under Evid.R. 609 and agreed to move on after the trial court struck the witness’s testimony regarding the prior conviction, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the witness’s prior criminal conviction. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
4/3/2024
|
4/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1256 |
|
State v. Olan
| C-230288 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS – CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION – MIRANDA: The trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements on the grounds that he was not advised of his Miranda rights because the questioning occurred during an investigative detention after a traffic violation and not a custodial interrogation. [See CONCURRENCE: Considering, in full, defendant’s arguments regarding his passport and the entire length of the body-camera video admitted into evidence, custody is a closer call, but the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.] [But see DISSENT: Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have understood himself to be in custody where defendant was blocked in by three police cars with their lights on and questioned about matters unrelated to the traffic stop, defendant’s passport was not returned prior to questioning, a language barrier was present between defendant and the officers, and defendant’s passenger was arrested.] | Zayas | Hamilton |
4/3/2024
|
4/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1257 |
|
Bender v. Durrani
| C-220326 | MEDICAL MALPRACTICE — EXPERT TESTIMONY — NEW TRIAL — CHARACTER EVIDENCE — OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE —HARMLESS ERROR — CUMULATIVE ERROR — JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT — STANDING —PREJUDGMENT INTEREST: Defendants were not entitled to a new trial following the jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs in a medical-malpractice trial where any evidentiary errors the trial court committed were harmless. The trial court properly denied defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because it correctly awarded plaintiffs past and future medical expenses: plaintiffs were the real parties in interest and had standing to seek past medical expenses where plaintiffs’ insurer had not paid all of plaintiffs’ medical expenses and had agreed to collect reimbursement of its lien from plaintiffs’ award; and plaintiffs’ future medical expenses were not speculative. The trial court properly awarded plaintiffs prejudgment interest where plaintiffs’ attempt to withdraw their prejudgment-interest motion had no effect as the trial court had already denied the motion before it was withdrawn and plaintiffs’ subsequent motion to set aside the denial revived the issue; the trial court’s bad-faith finding was supported by competent credible evidence. Defendants were not entitled to a credit against the plaintiffs’ judgment where the plaintiffs settled with other defendants for the same injury because the verdict against the defendants included intentional torts, which precluded a setoff. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/3/2024
|
4/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1258 |
|
State v. Hammonds
| C-220315, C-220344, C-230262 | EVIDENCE – MATERIAL – CHILD AGENCY RECORDS – RAPE – SUFFICIENCY: The trial court erred when it found that the codefendants in a child-rape case were not entitled to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services’ records where the records contain prior inconsistent statements and false accusations of abuse made by multiple state witnesses and child victims. The state presented sufficient evidence in support of defendant’s convictions for rape where victim statements in medical records and forensic interviews described defendant’s penetrative acts with victims under the age of 13. | Bock | Hamilton |
4/3/2024
|
4/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1259 |
|
State v. Coffman
| C-230411 | OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS – EVIDENCE – PURPOSELY – SUBSTANTIAL STOPPAGE – MOOTNESS: Defendant’s obstruction-of-official-business conviction under R.C. 2921.31 was not supported by sufficient evidence because defendant did not create a “substantial stoppage” in the police officer’s investigation where the delay caused by defendant’s behavior lasted approximately 20 seconds, and the state provided no evidence of defendant’s hampering or impeding the investigation beyond that de minimis delay. [But see DISSENT: The cause is moot because defendant completed the sentence prior to filing the appeal, defendant did not demonstrate anything to indicate he served the sentence involuntarily, and defendant already suffers the collateral disabilities of a misdemeanor conviction for obstruction of official business.] | Bock | Hamilton |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1182 |
|
In re De.R.
| C-230685 | JUVENILE – PLAIN ERROR – EVIDENCE – LAY TESTIMONY – REASONABLE EFFORTS – PERMANENT CUSTODY – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – BEST INTEREST – R.C. 2151.413: The juvenile court’s admission of expert testimony by a lay witness was not plain error when the testimony largely overlapped with other admitted evidence. The juvenile court’s removal of Mother’s youngest child was not plain error when Mother stipulated to interim custody, and there is no evidence that her stipulation was not knowing and voluntary. The magistrate’s finding that the agency made reasonable efforts toward reunification was not plain error when the agency provided Mother with services, and Mother had difficulty engaging with services due to two periods of incarceration. The juvenile court properly granted permanent custody to the agency when clear and convincing evidence supported its finding that a grant of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was in the best interest of the children. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1183 |
|
State v. Johnson
| C-230221 | EVIDENCE — SEARCH AND SEIZURE — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — PROBABLE CAUSE — EVID.R. 612: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of drugs and a firearm obtained during a search of defendant’s residence pursuant to a search warrant where the affidavit supporting the warrant application failed to establish a nexus between the evidence of illegal drug activity that police sought to seize and the place they sought to search, and therefore, issuance of the search warrant was without a substantial basis for probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [But see DISSENT: There was probable cause to issue the search warrant for defendant’s residence because the affidavit in support of the warrant contained sufficient nexus linking the defendant’s residence with the drug transactions with confidential informants that were verified by police officers.] Although the trial court erred under Evid.R. 612 in failing to preserve notes used to refresh a state’s witness’s recollection after it withheld the notes from review by defendant’s counsel, the error was harmless regarding defendant’s conviction for failing to comply with a signal of a police officer because the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence apart from the witness’s testimony. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/27/2024
|
3/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1147 |
|
State v. Williams
| C-230333 | POSTCONVICTION — R.C. 2953.23: The common pleas court did not err by dismissing defendant’s successive petition for postconviction relief where defendant could not meet the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.23: defendant was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts underlying his postconviction claims where he did not need access to his case file to know that his trial counsel had failed to call the victims’ mother’s boyfriend as a witness. The trial court’s failure to serve defendant with the judgment entry denying his first petition for postconviction relief did not prevent defendant from exercising his right to appeal where the time to appeal that judgment had been tolled and where defendant actually filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s first petition for postconviction relief where the postconviction claims were either barred by res judicata or did not present substantive grounds for relief. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/27/2024
|
3/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1148 |
|
State v. Barber
| C-230473 | ASSAULT — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: Where the trial court as the factfinder properly gave more weight to the victim’s testimony, after finding it more credible than defendant’s testimony, and where there was physical evidence of the assault, the trial court did not err in finding defendant guilty of assault. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1043 |
|
Jordan v. Cincinnati
| C-230430 | Judgment affirmed. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1044 |
|
State v. Dowdy
| C-230324 | CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive misdemeanor sentences where each sentence was within the statutory range for first-degree misdemeanors, the total aggregate sentence was within the 18 month threshold of R.C. 2929.41(B)(1), and the trial court considered appellant’s conduct, behavior, and rehabilitation in determining the sentences. | Winkler | Hamilton |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1045 |
|
Carter v. Carter
| C-230322 | DIVORCE – MARITAL DEBT – MARITAL PROPERTY – R.C. 3105.171 – SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Husband did not need to object at the close of evidence to preserve an evidentiary objection made during the trial before a magistrate for review by the trial court. The trial court did not err when it allocated a substantial portion of marital debt to wife as a sanction under R.C. 3105.171(E)(5) for failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders. The trial court did not err in determining that a vehicle was not marital property when the uncontroverted evidence showed that, although the vehicle was titled in husband’s name, husband’s adult daughter had made all payments for the vehicle, the vehicle was intended for her exclusive use and benefit, and husband did not deposit the proceeds from an insurance payment after the vehicle was totaled in an accident. The trial court abused its discretion when it entered an award of spousal support where the court did not explain its basis for deciding the amount and the duration of support. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to require husband to reimburse wife for life insurance premiums paid by wife during the pendency of the divorce where wife did not request relief from the court from continuing to make payments and it would be inequitable to require husband to bear the cost of the policy without notice. The trial court erred when it set a deadline for wife to turn over to husband proof of payments for the couple’s child’s school expenses to the day after the court mailed the decree of divorce to the parties. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1046 |
|
Edy v. Farmers Property Casualty Ins. Co.
| C-230298 | DISCOVERY – ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE – CIV.R. 26: The trial court did not err when it ordered production of defendant insurer’s claims file up to the date of a benefits payment where plaintiffs insureds alleged that defendant unreasonably delayed the processing, handling, and payment of their benefits claim in bad faith. The trial court did not err when it ordered the production of defendant insurer’s claims file without conducting an in-camera inspection for privileged attorney-client communications where defendant’s conclusory statements failed to establish the existence of privileged documents. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1047 |
|
Hughes v. SW Ohio Regional Transit Auth.
| C-230225 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT – CIV.R. 56 – COMMON CARRIER – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE: Where defendant, a common carrier, moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence claim and satisfied its initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it breached the applicable duty of care by failing to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of its passengers consistent with the practical operation of the system, and where plaintiff failed to meet her reciprocal burden of setting forth specific facts to show the existence of a triable issue of fact, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1048 |
|
Dumais v. Cincinnati Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr.
| C-230190, C-230191 | CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — R.C. 2305.113 — MEDICAL CLAIM — STATUTE OF REPOSE — R.C. 2305.15: The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff patient’s claim for vicarious liability against defendant hospital based on the medical-claim statute of repose where R.C. 2305.15 is only applicable to toll claims against the person who is alleged to be out of the state, absconded, or concealed, and there is no claim that the hospital was ever out of the state, absconded, or concealed. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff patient’s claim for negligent credentialing against defendant hospital based on the medical-claim statute of repose where this court’s precedent establishes that the claim is a medical claim under R.C. 2305.113. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff patient’s claims for fraud in the concealment and constructive fraud against defendant doctors based on the medical-claim statute of repose where this court’s precedent establishes that the claims are medical claims under R.C. 2305.113 and the last culpable act regarding these claims was the date of the underlying surgery. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/20/2024
|
3/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1022 |
|
State v. Whittle
| C-230288, C-230318 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - SEARCH AND SEIZURE – OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE – EVID.R. 403(A) – PLAIN ERROR - CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION – RIGHT TO COUNSEL – APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during the execution of a search warrant in which defendant argued that the warrant failed to particularly describe the place to be searched where even though the warrant designated the wrong apartment letter, the affidavit in support of the warrant consistently stated that the evidence would be found at the apartment on the second floor of a two-story building on the northwest corner. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during the execution of a search warrant where, even though the affidavit supporting the warrant did not contain a notary seal, the affidavit met the specific requirements of R.C. 2933.23 and Crim.R. 41(C)(1), and those provisions prevail over the more general statutes governing notaries and their certifications, and suppression is only warranted for rule violations of a constitutional magnitude. The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting other-acts evidence of five controlled buys that occurred before the execution of a search warrant at defendant’s residence under Evid.R. 404(B) or in failing to exclude that evidence under Evid.R. 403(A), where due to the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, the outcome of the trial would not have been otherwise. Defendant’s conviction for trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state presented competent, credible evidence that defendant constructively possessed drugs found in the basement of an apartment building including tear-offs from plastic baggies, lottery tickets, firearms, digital scales and other items related to drug trafficking along with several documents bearing defendant’s name and address. The trial court did not err in failing to grant defendant’s request to fire counsel made at the sentencing hearing, to investigate whether new counsel was appropriate or whether defendant should be permitted to represent himself where defendant had changed counsel numerous times, his request to fire counsel was not timely made, he did not demonstrate good cause to change counsel, and the trial court had no choice but to impose a mandatory sentence. The appellate court need not address defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where defendant failed to specify where counsel was ineffective for failing to object. | Winkler | Hamilton |
3/20/2024
|
3/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1023 |
|
State v. Brown
| C-230344 | FELONIOUS ASSAULT – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the weight of the evidence where the victim testified that defendant hit her five or six times with a gun causing two black eyes and lacerations on her forehead, left eyebrow, and scalp that required stitches, and the factfinder found the victim’s testimony to be credible. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/20/2024
|
3/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1024 |
|
State v. Harris
| C-230379 | CONSTITTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – PROBABLE CAUSE: The trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress a gun and drugs found in his car where the record provided competent and credible evidence that the police officer observed defendant with a gun and knew he was under a disability, and the officers had probable cause to believe defendant committed the offense of having a weapon while under a disability. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/20/2024
|
3/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1025 |
|
State v. Sanders
| C-230393 | NEW TRIAL — POSTCONVICTION: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing where the motion lacked merit: defendant failed to attach the potential alibi witness’s affidavit to his motion and, even if the alibi witness would have testified as defendant claims, the new testimony did not disclose a strong probability of a different result if a new trial is granted and merely contradicted evidence at trial considering defendant’s admission that he had been present with his codefendant when the crimes occurred. The common pleas court did not err by dismissing defendant’s successive petition for postconviction relief where defendant could not meet the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.23: defendant was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts underlying his postconviction claims where he was present at all relevant times during his trial and sentencing hearing and knew that his trial counsel had failed to object to the admission of certain evidence and the nature of the sentencing hearing and where defendant knew prior to trial of a potential alibi witness and had been present with this witness when his codefendant had allegedly confessed to them that he had committed the crimes alone. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/20/2024
|
3/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1026 |
|
Zachary v. LaNoue
| C-230408 | CUSTODY – SUBJECT-MATTER JURISIDICTION – UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT – R.C. 3127.15 – R.C. 3127.17 – FOREIGN CUSTODY DECREE: Pursuant to R.C. 3127.15(A)(1) and (2), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify a Texas custody decree under R.C. 3127.17 because there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Ohio was the home state of the child six months prior to the commencement of the action or that Texas declined to exercise jurisdiction. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
3/20/2024
|
3/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1027 |
|
Midland Credit Mgt., Inc. v. Naber
| C-230413 | CIV.R. 56 — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — EVIDENCE — ACTION ON AN ACCOUNT — ACCOUNT STATED: In an action on an account, the trial court did not err in considering an affidavit submitted by plaintiff in support of summary judgment where the affiant averred that she had access to and had reviewed the pertinent account records, and that the statements in her affidavit pertaining to the account were based on personal knowledge of the account records, and where defendant failed to submit any evidence to the contrary. Where, in an action on an account, the defendant failed to object to the authenticity of credit-card statements submitted by plaintiff in support of summary judgment, defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in considering the statements is waived for purposes of appeal. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action on an account where the evidence submitted in support of summary judgment was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for money owed on the account and defendant failed to submit any evidence in response to show that the established amount was incorrect. The trial court did not err by failing to hold a case-management conference prior to ruling on a summary-judgment motion where there is no requirement to do so prior to ruling on a dispositive motion and where defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the court’s failure to hold a case-management conference prior to ruling on the motion for summary judgment. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/20/2024
|
3/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1028 |
|
State v. Stroud
| C-230453 & C-230454 | SENTENCING – R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) – COMMUNITY-CONTROL VIOLATION – R.C. 2929.15 – POSTRELEASE CONTROL – CRIM.R. 43: Where the community-control violations committed by defendant were both technical and nontechnical, the trial court was not limited to imposing the 90-day limit for technical violations for a fifth-degree felony offense set forth in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i). The trial court erred by failing to provide the required postrelease-control notifications at the sentencing hearing. The trial court violated defendant’s Crim.R. 43(A) right to be present during sentencing when it failed to impose a sentence for the offense of aggravated possession of drugs in open court at the sentencing hearing. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-933 |
|
State v. Hughes
| C-230239 | WEAPONS – HAVING A WEAPON WHILE INTOXICATED – PLAIN ERROR – INTOXICATION – FIREARM – OPERABILITY: The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting the writing on an evidence envelope together with its contents as one exhibit because the writing was not probative of any element of the offense and thus defendant could not have been prejudiced by its admission. Defendant’s conviction for having a weapon while under the influence was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where two witnesses opined that defendant was under the influence of alcohol and observed multiple physical indica of intoxication and where the firearm was loaded when it was seized from defendant, a trained police officer opined the firearm was operable at the time of seizure, the firearm was test-fired, and defendant made statements indicating the firearm was operable. | Winkler | Hamilton |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-934 |
|
State v. Frazier
| C-230177 | JURY WAIVER – R.C. 2945.05: The trial court violated defendant’s right to a jury trial when the trial court proceeded to a bench trial without first addressing defendant in open court and confirming that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, as required by R.C. 2945.05. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-935 |
|
State v. Chasteen
| C-230174 | SEXUAL IMPOSITION – SEXUAL CONTACT – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – PURPOSELY – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE – JOINDER: The trial court did not commit plain error when it did not instruct the jury on the meaning of “purposely” in the context of the definition of “sexual contact” where the court instructed the jury to rely on its individual and collective knowledge and understanding of the meaning of any undefined terms. Trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to request an instruction on the definition of “purposely” where it was not plain error for the court to fail to give such an instruction and counsel presented an argument based on the required element of purpose. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining defendant’s two counts of sexual imposition against separate victims in a single trial where the evidence of each count was simple and distinct. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/13/2024
|
3/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-909 |
|
State v. Harris
| C-230284 | PLEAS — CRIM.R. 11 Where the trial court was not bound by the recommended sentence in the plea agreement and explained to defendant the difference in the potential sentence as opposed to what was stated on the plea form, the trial court did not err to defendant’s prejudice in deviating from the recommended sentence in the plea agreement, especially where defendant ultimately was sentenced to the four years she had bargained for. Where the trial court explained the clerical error in the written plea form and confirmed defendant’s understanding of the correct potential sentence, defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered the guilty plea. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
3/13/2024
|
3/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-910 |
|
Carter v. Takoda Trails
| C-230329 | ARBITRATION — CONTRACTS — MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION: The trial court did not err in denying defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration where the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract stated that it applied to any claims “arising out of” a separate contract and defendants failed to submit an authenticated copy of the separate contract into the record. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/13/2024
|
3/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-911 |
|
Hill-Lewis v. Clifton Healthcare Ctr.
| C-230419 | PROCEDURE/RULES – COMPLAINT: The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint where plaintiffs failed to name the defendants in the body of the complaint and failed to assert any claims against them. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ alternative motion for leave to amend the complaint where plaintiffs failed to tender a proposed amended complaint or to explain how they would resolve the complaint’s deficiencies. See Olthaus v. Niesen, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-230142, 2023-Ohio-4710, ¶ 27. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-846 |
|
State v. Robinson
| C-2303964, C-230395 | SENTENCING: Defendant’s convictions for driving left of center, failing to stop after an accident, and failing to comply with the signal of a police officer were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where two officers observed and pursued defendant fleeing the scene of a collision. Defendant’s sentences for failure to stop and failure to comply were contrary to law because the financial sanctions he received differed from what was announced at the sentencing hearing. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-847 |
|
Gipson v. Hamilton Cty. Clerk of Courts
| C-230364 | CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — NOTICE — EXCEPTION: Any potential error arising from the failure of plaintiffs to receive notice of the trial court’s entry granting the defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim was harmless where the trial court would have been permitted to sua sponte dismiss the complaint without notice as it is obvious that the plaintiffs cannot prevail on the facts alleged in their complaint. | Zayas | Hamilton |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-848 |
|
State v. Henry
| C-230287 | EVIDENCE — TAMPERING — MOTION TO SUPPRESS — MIRANDA: The trial court correctly found that defendant’s pre-Miranda statements were made during a noncustodial interview and it did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress where defendant voluntarily offered incriminating statements after detectives provided Miranda warnings. There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s tampering-with-evidence conviction where defendant, knowing that police would investigate the shooting that occurred inside of her home, admitted to finding the deceased’s phone after the shooting and placing it inside of her purse. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-849 |
|
In re J.L.
| C-230140 | CHILDREN – PERMANENT CUSTODY – STANDARD OF REVIEW – JUV.R. 40(D) – R.C. 2151.414 – BEST INTEREST: The juvenile court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when it granted permanent custody to the children services agency where appellant mother had not demonstrated long-term stability and sobriety, as required by her case plan, and the court properly considered all of the best-interest factors under R.C. 2151.414(D). An appellate court does not review a juvenile court’s permanent-custody decision for an abuse of discretion; rather, the court reviews the decision under a sufficiency-of-the-evidence or manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, based upon the parties’ arguments. | Crouse | Hamilton |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-850 |
|
State v. Wright
| C-220578 | RAPE – ATTEMPT – MANIFEST WEIGHT – EXPERT TESTIMONY – HEARSAY: The child-victim’s testimony that defendant performed oral sex on the victim and placed his penis on the outside of her “butt” constituted sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions for rape and attempted rape. The trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial was not an abuse of discretion where the trial court reasonably concluded that a sexually-transmitted-infection diagnosis did not constitute newly discovered evidence because defendant experienced symptoms of the infection before trial. It was harmless error for the trial court to admit evidence containing a physician’s conclusion that there is a high likelihood 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 trial court did not rely on that statement to reach its judgment. The trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony on delayed disclosure from a social worker with specialized information and extensive experience conducting forensic interviews who demonstrated her knowledge of the subject at trial. The trial court did not err when it allowed an expert witness to testify that the child-victim’s behavior during the forensic interview was consistent with children who have experienced sexual abuse, because that testimony assisted the trier of fact’s understanding of the nature of the child’s behavior while disclosing abuse and the expert declined to testify about whether the abuse had occurred. The trial court did not err in admitting a recording of the child-victim’s statements during a forensic interview, where the interviewer testified that the purpose of the interview was to determine if a physical examination or mental-health treatment was necessary, the child understood the need to be truthful, and the questions in the interview were not leading. | Bock | Hamilton |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-851 |
|