Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 123 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Brown C-180180, C-180181AGGRAVATED ROBBERY – DEADLY WEAPON – FIREARM: The evidence was insufficient to support the deadly-weapon element of an aggravated-robbery charge and a firearm specification where, even though the victims believed defendant possessed a gun, direct evidence from a videotape clearly showed that defendant did not have a gun, which negated any inferences that might have arisen from the circumstantial evidence.BergeronHamilton 8/21/2019 8/21/2019 2019-Ohio-3349
State v. Sanchez Martinez C-180580COMMUNITY CONTROL – SENTENCING: Where the trial court concluded that defendant had failed to follow the terms and conditions of community control to the point where defendant had engaged in a pattern of conduct that demonstrated a failure to comply with the community-control sanction as a whole, the violations were not “technical” and the limitation on sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c) did not apply.MockHamilton 8/21/2019 8/21/2019 2019-Ohio-3350
In re R.B. C-170622, C-170623SEX OFFENSES – CLASSIFICATION – REGISTRATION – JUVENILE – JURISDICTION: The juvenile court had no jurisdiction to enter an order continuing the juvenile’s classification as a Tier I juvenile-offender registrant after he had turned 21 and his disposition, by its own terms, had ended; therefore, the court’s judgments continuing the Tier I classification must be vacated.CrouseHamilton 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3298
State v. Jackson C-180245, C-180246SENTENCING: The trial court erred where it failed during the sentencing hearing to make two of the three findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for imposing consecutive sentences, and the cause must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing on that issue even though the court made all three findings in its sentencing entry. The trial court properly considered the principles and purposes of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the felony sentencing factors of R.C. 2929.12 in sentencing defendant. Defendant’s sentences for each individual count are supported by the record and are not contrary to law, but the cause must be remanded for the trial court to properly make the consecutive sentencing findings.CrouseHamilton 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3299
Loukinas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. C-180462APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL – DISCOVERY – INSURANCE – JURISDICTION – R.C. 2505.02(B) – PROVISIONAL REMEDY: The trial court’s order compelling an insurer to disclose materials allegedly protected as work product and by the attorney-client privilege was a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) because it would be impossible for the insurer to later obtain a judgment denying the motion to compel disclosure and there is no effective remedy other than an immediate appeal. Where the trial court bifurcated an insured’s claim alleging bad faith denial of insurance coverage from the insured’s claims for a declaratory judgment and breach of contract in the insured’s action against its insurer, the trial court erred by compelling the insurer to disclose materials protected by the work-product doctrine or attorney-client privilege contained in its claims file and compelling the depositions of its representatives about these materials prior to the resolution of the declaratory-judgment and breach-of-contract claims.MyersHamilton 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3300
State v. Hendrix C-180503CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON – R.C. 2923.12(C)(1)(c) – AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The exception to the carrying-a-concealed-weapon offense set forth in R.C. 2923.12(C)(1)(c) presents an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, that is, whether “any lawful purpose” existed for defendant’s transportation or storage of a firearm in a motor vehicle, and thus creates an affirmative defense as defined by R.C. 2901.05(D)(1)(b).MyersHamilton 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3301
Ralls v. Lewin C-180526PROCEDURE/RULES – CIV.R. 12(B)(6) – CIV.R. 56 –SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Where defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and where the trial court considered materials outside the pleadings and entered a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, the court’s dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was improper because the court based its decision on matters outside the pleadings and its entry of summary judgment was improper because the court failed to notify plaintiff nonmoving party of its intention to convert defendant’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss into a summary-judgment motion, thereby depriving plaintiff of an opportunity to demonstrate that a material fact existed.MyersHamilton 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3302
State v. Carberry C-180540JAIL-TIME CREDIT: The trial court erred in failing to award defendant jail-time credit for time spent in confinement stemming from a delinquency complaint before defendant was bound over to adult court where defendant had been confined for a reason related to the offense for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced. Defendant was not entitled to jail-time credit for the time he was confined under a previous delinquency complaint that arose from facts separate from those on which defendant’s conviction and sentence were based.MockHamilton 8/16/2019 8/16/2019 2019-Ohio-3303
State v. Riggins C-180069AGGRAVATED MURDER – AGGRAVATED ROBBERY – EVIDENCE – BAD FAITH – HEARSAY – COUNSEL – ALLIED OFFENSES: Defendant failed to establish that the state had acted in bad faith by failing to preserve the recordings of phone calls that defendant made from the Hamilton County Justice Center where the investigating detective made repeated inquiries about obtaining the recordings and there was no evidence of why the Justice Center failed to fill the requests before the recordings were destroyed. [See CONCURRENCE: While the record does not demonstrate bad faith because we do not have information about why the Justice Center failed to act on the detective’s request, the failure to preserve this important evidence in such a significant case is inexcusable.] Where the victim made a statement shortly before dying, but the record does not demonstrate that he understood that his death was imminent, his statement did not qualify as a dying declaration; but the admission of the statement was not prejudicial because it did qualify as an excited utterance. Defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated murder were based on sufficient evidence because the testimony of one of defendant’s partners that they had gone out and tried to rob people and the victim’s declaration that he had been robbed and shot were sufficient to establish that defendant had attempted to rob the victim prior to shooting him. Defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated murder were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant’s partner testified that defendant had shot and killed the victim during a botched robbery, the vehicle defendant was in belonged to his mother, he was arrested on unrelated charges with the murder weapon, and he made a number of calls from jail that indicated he knew he was about to be charged with murder when no one had told him that was the charge they were investigating. Counsel was not ineffective for failing argue that there was no evidence that an attempted robbery had occurred when the evidence showed that defendant had planned to rob the victim, or in failing to object to subsequent testimony about what the victim said before he died when the objection was overruled the first time. Aggravated murder and aggravated robbery were not allied offenses of similar import where defendant committed the aggravated murder with a separate animus or motivation from the aggravated robbery.MockHamilton 8/14/2019 8/14/2019 2019-Ohio-3254
State v. Benson C-180128EXPERT OPINION – CRIM.R. 16(K) – HARMLESS ERROR – COUNSEL – EVIDENCE/WITNESS/TRIAL – PROSECUTOR – SENTENCING : Where defendant was charged with murder, felonious assault, aggravated vehicular homicide and failure to stop after an accident, the trial court erred in allowing the police officer to testify as an expert witness where the state did not produce an expert witness report as required by Crim.R. 16(K) and where the officer testified as to the ultimate issue at trial—defendant’s intent; but because the remaining evidence was overwhelming, the error was harmless. [See CONCURRENCE: Where defendant failed to object to the expert testimony or to the absence of an expert report, plain-error analysis should be employed.] Where defendant did not take the stand, defense counsel was not ineffective for stating during jury selection that defendant would testify, because counsel’s statement that defendant would “testify” was substantiated by body-camera video of defendant and her police interviews. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to properly qualify an expert witness where the expert’s opinion would have been excluded. There was no error in the admission of defendant’s toxicology report where defendant admitted to taking a shot and smoking marijuana on the night of the incident and it was cumulative of other evidence. There was no error in the admission of social-media evidence, where it was necessary to give background information to set the case. Alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not constitute reversible error where the prosecutor properly commented on the state’s evidence, the prosecutor’s characterization of defendant did not affect the outcome of the trial and the prosecutor’s discussion of defendant’s potential sentences, even if improper, was corrected by the trial court’s instructions. The consecutive sentences imposed were supported by proper R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings which were incorporated into the sentencing entry. The trial court erred in imposing a lifetime driver’s license suspension on a count that had been merged.BergeronHamilton 8/14/2019 8/14/2019 2019-Ohio-3255