|
|
State v. Keith
| C-250623 | SELF-DEFENSE — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — MANIFEST WEIGHT —REAGAN TOKES LAW — COUNSEL: Where the jury rejected defendant’s claim of self-defense in a felonious assault case, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed where the State disproved two elements of self-defense. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call an eyewitness or an expert witness where defendant offered no information about what those witnesses would have testified to, nor was trial counsel ineffective for failing to renew a Crim.R. 29 motion when that motion would have been overruled. | Crouse | Hamilton |
11/13/2026
|
11/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4507 |
|
In re $27,284.22 U.S. Currency Seized From Barber
| C-250452 | FORFEITURE — R.C. 2981.02 — R.C. 2981.05: Competent, credible evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the currency ordered forfeited was acquired through the commission of a criminal offense where the evidence presented at the forfeiture hearing established that appellant was parked in an area known for drug trafficking when the currency was seized, a stolen firearm, a digital scale, and marijuana were found in the vehicle, and a large amount of cash, in denominations consistent with hand-to-hand drug sales or street-level drug trafficking, was recovered from the vehicle, and that appellant had been observed engaging in a hand-to-hand drug sale in the same location a week before the money was seized. | Crouse | Hamilton |
11/13/2026
|
11/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4506 |
|
State v. Gibson
| C-260113 | SENTENCING — COMMUNITY CONTROL — PRISON — JAIL — SPLIT SENTENCE — R.C. 2929.16 — DUE PROCESS: The trial court was authorized pursuant to R.C. 2929.16(A)(2) to include a jail term of up to six months as a community-control sanction, and the imposition of a 180-day jail term in addition to a period of community control was not the functional equivalent of a split sentence. Defendant’s substantive and procedural rights to due process were not violated when the trial court sentenced defendant to both 180 days in jail and a three-year period of community control. | Crouse | Hamilton |
11/13/2026
|
11/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4508 |
|
State v. Price
| C-260152 | INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — CRIM.R. 16(K) — EXPERT WITNESS — MANIFEST WEIGHT — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER DISABILITY — SELF-DEFENSE — INITIAL AGGRESSOR — SUFFICIENCY — CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE — KNOWINGLY: Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to an expert report provided less than 21 days before trial in violation of Crim.R. 16(K) or by failing to engage an expert witness where any potential deficiency in counsel’s failure to object did not prejudice defendant because defendant and his witnesses testified to the same basic facts that were in the expert report and where any potential utility of expert testimony was speculative. Defendant’s convictions for felonious assault and having weapons while under disability were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence supported findings that defendant was the initial aggressor and that defendant possessed the firearm prior to the altercation, thereby negating defendant’s claim of self-defense. Defendant’s convictions for felonious assault and having weapons while under disability were supported by sufficient evidence where circumstantial evidence supported a finding that defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and shot the victim with it. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
11/13/2026
|
11/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4509 |
|
State v. Smith
| C-250485 | MURDER — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER DISABILITY — SELF-DEFENSE — MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — “STAND YOUR GROUND” — DUTY TO WITHDRAW — CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES — R.C. 2929.14: The State met its burden to disprove at least one element of defendant’s self-defense claim by presenting evidence to show that defendant caused the affray leading to the shooting that left two other people injured and another dead; therefore, the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error in its instructions to the jury on self-defense and the instruction did not conflict with Ohio’s “Stand Your Ground” law where the court specifically instructed the jury that defendant had no duty to retreat if he was in a place where he lawfully had a right to be and found that defendant was not trespassing when the shooting occurred. The trial court did not commit plain error by permitting the State to make comments during its closing argument regarding evidence that went toward the consciousness of guilt where the comments were based on evidence that was in the record. Where defense counsel failed to object to a question that the State posed to a witness as to whether the shooting would have occurred if defendant had not approached the group with a gun, the trial court did not err by sustaining the State’s objection to defense counsel’s similar question, particularly where the record bears out the obvious conclusion that the shooting would not have occurred had defendant not approached the victims while pointing a gun. Defendant’s consecutive sentences were not contrary to law: defendant concedes that the trial court made the requisite statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14 at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry, and the consecutive sentences were supported by the record. | Moore | Hamilton |
11/6/2026
|
11/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4405 |
|