|
|
State v. Wilson
| C-250494 | MOOTNESS: The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s appeal from two misdemeanor convictions for aggravated menacing where defendant’s appeal was moot: defendant had fully served his sentences, had not moved for a stay of execution, and did not demonstrate that he would suffer an ongoing collateral legal consequence arising from his convictions. | Bock | Hamilton |
9/18/2026
|
9/18/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3658 |
|
State v. Jordan
| C-250505 | RAPE — SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: Defendant’s conviction for rape was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury heard testimony from the victim about the criminal encounter, testimony from officers that the victim identified defendant from a photo lineup months after the encounter, and forensic testimony establishing that defendant’s DNA was found on the victim. | Nestor | Hamilton |
9/18/2026
|
9/18/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3659 |
|
State v. Hayes
| C-250566 | FAILING TO YIELD: Defendant’s conviction for failing to yield the right of way was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the defendant testified that she saw a vehicle traveling with the right of way on a 50-m.p.h. road, she turned left out of a public park onto that road in front of that vehicle, that vehicle rear-ended defendant, and the responding officer testified that the accident occurred 30 feet from the public park’s exit. | Bock | Hamilton |
9/18/2026
|
9/18/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3660 |
|
In re L.E.S
| C-220430, C-220436 | CUSTODY — SHARED-CUSTODY AGREEMENT — WORDS AND CONDUCT — BEST INTEREST — COMPANIONSHIP TIME: The juvenile court did not abrogate “Ohio’s well-established legal framework for same-sex custody disputes” where the juvenile court applied the framework set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in In re Mullen, 2011-Ohio-3361. The juvenile court did not err in determining that a shared-custody agreement existed regarding the two younger children where the juvenile court found that the parties shared an intent to “coparent” the children that was synonymous with an understanding that appellant parent intended to permanently relinquish some of her rights to exclusive custody of the children in favor of shared custody with appellee custodian and the juvenile court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The juvenile court did not err in utilizing the statutory factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) as guidance when determining whether shared custody was in the best interest of the children under In re Mullen, 2011-Ohio-3361, where the juvenile court was required to consider “all known factors” under In re Bonfield, 2002-Ohio-6660, and the juvenile court found that, although the factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(2) were not directly applicable, a best-interest determination under In re Mullen “should resemble a best interest determination for shared parenting” as a shared-custody agreement is “substantially similar” to a shared-parenting agreement. The juvenile court’s determination that shared custody is in the best interest of the children was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the testimony of the parties and the guardian ad litem support the juvenile court’s findings and the juvenile court was permitted to determine the weight of the evidence. The juvenile court did not err in awarding appellee custodian companionship time with the two younger children without affording any special weight to appellant parent’s wishes where the evidence shows that appellant parent voluntarily relinquished sole custody in favor of shared custody with appellee custodian and appellant parent conceded at oral argument that the award of companionship time to appellee custodian under such an agreement was “no harm no foul.” The juvenile court did not err in declining to terminate the shared-custody agreement regarding the older child where the juvenile court found that shared custody was in the best interest of the child and this determination was supported by the record. | Zayas | Hamilton |
9/16/2026
|
9/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3613 |
|
State v. Bell
| C-250533 | CRIM.R. 3 — SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION — MUNICIPAL COURT JURISDICTION — COMPLAINTS — FAILURE TO DISCLOSE PERSONAL INFORMATION — R.C. 2921.29 — PUBLIC PLACE — STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS — R.C. 2921.31 — DISORDERLY CONDUCT — R.C. 2917.11: The municipal court had subject-matter jurisdiction where, although the complaint failed to allege under which subsection defendant was charged, defendant had fair notice of which provision was at issue. Because a detainee in the back seat of a police cruiser is not “in a public place,” the State failed to present sufficient evidence to convict defendant of violating R.C. 2921.29. [But see DISSENT: Under the plain language of the statute, defendant was in a public place while sitting in a police cruiser parked on a public road.] Defendant’s conviction for obstructing official business was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed he had repeatedly screamed, yelled, and kicked the inside of a police vehicle, requiring one of the investigating officers to remain near the vehicle rather than investigate the offense. Defendant’s conviction for disorderly conduct was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed defendant had repeatedly and violently kicked the interior of a police vehicle, inconveniencing the investigating officers. | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/16/2026
|
9/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3614 |
|