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

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

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:   What is Year Decided?
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 13 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re D.P. 6-16-07The trial court erred in (1) failing to inform the appellant-juvenile of his right to counsel or to obtain a valid waiver of the right to counsel and (2) failing to conduct a proper Juv.R. 29(D) colloquy with the appellant-juvenile and allowing appellant-juvenile to enter an admission on the record prior to revoking the appellant-juvenile's probation and invoking a prior commitment of the appellant-juvenile to DYS.ShawHardin 2/21/2017 2/21/2017 2017-Ohio-606
State v. Thomas 9-16-41The trial court did not err calculating Appellant's jail-time credit.ShawMarion 2/21/2017 2/21/2017 2017-Ohio-607
State v. Lauf 12-16-06Appellant's convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence.ShawPutnam 2/21/2017 2/21/2017 2017-Ohio-608
State v. Arnold 13-16-13The trial court did not err by finding the defendant-appellant guilty because the defendant-appellant waived the explanation-of-the-circumstances requirement of R.C. 2937.07 when he pled no contest. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering, as part of the defendant-appellant's sentence, that the dog be destroyed following the defendant-appellant's conviction under R.C. 955.22.PrestonSeneca 1/30/2017 1/30/2017 2017-Ohio-326
State v. Silknitter 14-16-07The record supports the trial court's findings under the relevant sentencing statutes, and the defendant-appellant's sentence is not otherwise contrary to law. The defendant-appellant waived any arguments related to alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report and to the trial court's treatment of those inaccuracies. Ohio's incest statute, R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), does not violate the defendant-appellant's constitutional rights. The requirements imposed on the defendant-appellant as a Tier III sex offender do not violate the defendant-appellant's constitutional rights. The sex-offender-registration legislation, Am.Sub.S.B. 10, codified in R.C. Chapter 2950, does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine.PrestonUnion 1/30/2017 1/30/2017 2017-Ohio-327
State v. Ortega 5-16-17The trial court does not abuse its discretion when a defendant requests new counsel and then chooses to confer with rather than to discharge counsel.WillamowskiHancock 1/23/2017 1/23/2017 2017-Ohio-239
State v. Liles 1-16-33The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the defendant-appellant's petition for post conviction relief without a hearing.PrestonAllen 1/23/2017 1/23/2017 2017-Ohio-240
State v. Valdez 9-16-01Defendant-Appellant, Jose Valdez, Jr., appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County convicting him of one count of trafficking in cocaine, one count of trafficking in heroin with a forfeiture specification, and sentencing him to eight years in prison. On appeal, Valdez argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress; (2) abusing its discretion in the way that it handled Crim.R. 16 violations committed by the State; (3) failing to exclude the fruits of a July 9, 2015 search; (4) entering a verdict that was not supported by sufficient evidence; and (5) entering a verdict that was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court, and remand for further proceedings.RogersMarion 1/23/2017 1/23/2017 2017-Ohio-241
State v. Thiel 16-16-01Defendant-Appellant, Scott Thiel, appeals the judgment of the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of complicity to commit felonious assault and sentencing him to two years in prison. On appeal, Thiel argues that the trial court erred in not admitting hearsay statements under Evid.R. 804(B); the trial court erred in sustaining several of the State's objections relating to his claim of self-defense; the trial court erred in failing to give requested jury instructions on complicity; the trial court erred in failing to give a requested jury instruction on self-defense; the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial; and the trial court erred in failing to hold a restitution hearing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court, and remand the matter for further proceedings. RogersWyandot 1/23/2017 1/23/2017 2017-Ohio-242
Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs., Inc. 5-16-01The trial court erred in determining that the appellee-insurance company did not have a duty to defend and indemnify its insured against the owner's claims under the specific provisions of the CGL policy.ShawHancock 1/23/2017 1/24/2017 2017-Ohio-258
12