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 363 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Evans 27178The trial court's statements to the jury on Monday that its goal was to complete the trial by Thursday, and several rulings that were contrary to the appellant do not constitute judicial bias and did not deprive the appellant of his due-process right to a fair trial. The trial court did not err in declining to suppress statements the appellant made to a corrections officer while being booked into jail. The trial court did not err in denying a motion the appellant made under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), during jury selection. The trial court did not err in permitting a deputy coroner, who had performed almost 4,000 autopsies, to testify as an expert regarding the cause of a child's death. The fact that deputy coroner was not board certified did not disqualify him as an expert. The jury's verdict is neither based on legally insufficient evidence nor against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring).HallMontgomery 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8184
State v. Guerrero-Sanchez 27327The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to suppress his statements to officers and the drug evidence seized from his hotel room. Appellant's claim that his statements were involuntary and suppressible as the result of a language barrier lacks merit, as there is competent, credible evidence in the record establishing that Appellant spoke English and understood what the investigating officers were saying during the encounter in question. In addition, because Appellant's statements were not made during a custodial interrogation, Appellant's statements were not suppressible due to the officers' failure to administer Miranda warnings. The drug evidence seized from Appellant's hotel room was also not suppressible because the evidence was discovered pursuant to a consensual search. Furthermore, there is no error in Appellant's sentence, as we do not find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the maximum 11-year prison term imposed by the trial court for Appellant's first-degree-felony aggravated possession of drugs offense. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8185
Shell v. Higgins 2017-CA-5Appellant did not receive notice of the final divorce hearing as required by due process and Civ.R. 75(L). In addition, the trial court failed to comply with Civ.R. 75(K) by not waiting 42 days after the Appellant was served with process to hold the final divorce hearing. Reversed and remanded for a new final divorce hearing.WelbaumDarke 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8186
State v. Lipsinic 27508Defendant-appellant asserts the trial court erred by overruling his motion to suppress. The Defendant-appellant was a passenger in a vehicle which had been reported stolen. His seizure so that an investigation regarding the stolen vehicle report could be conducted did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Further, the pat down search of Defendant-appellant, which led to the discovery of the drugs at issue, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8187
State v. Radford 2016-CA-80Defendant-appellant's convictions, following a jury trial, for trafficking in cocaine, trafficking in heroin, and having a weapon while under disability are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The determination that the convictions are not against the weight of the evidence is dispositive of Defendant-appellant's sufficiency of the evidence argument. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8189
Thompson v. Thompson 27394The trial court did not err by overruling Appellant's objections to the magistrate's child-custody decision. Appellant filed the objections more than 14 days after the magistrate's decision was entered and after the trial court had entered judgment adopting it. The court did not plainly err by naming Appellee the residential parent and legal custodian of the parties' minor children. Appellant is serving a 6-year prison sentence and can no longer be the residential parent. The magistrate did not plainly err by declining to issue subpoenas on Appellant's behalf. The court did not plainly err by not ordering parenting time or visitation. The court did not plainly err by ordering Appellant to pay monthly child support that exceeds his prison income. The magistrate did not plainly err by denying Appellant's request that his mother represent him at the hearing. And the trial court did not err by striking the "sworn statement" that Appellant attached to his untimely objections. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring).HallMontgomery 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8192
State v. VanWinkle 2017-CA-4Defendant-Appellant's counsel filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). A thorough review of the record reveals no arguably meritorious appellate issues. Judgment affirmed.DonovanChampaign 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8194
State v. Withrow 2017-CA-36Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petition for postconviction relief without a hearing. Petition was untimely, petitioner did not present any evidence in support of his claims, and his arguments related to his sentence were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.FroelichClark 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8195
In re A.K. 27575The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody of the appellant's child to the maternal aunt and uncle. The record supports a finding that such a disposition is in the child's best interest. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 10/6/2017 10/6/2017 2017-Ohio-8100
State v. Chatman 27531Defendant-appellant's counsel filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967). A thorough review of the record reveals no arguably meritorious appellate issues. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 10/6/2017 10/6/2017 2017-Ohio-8101
12345678910...>>