|
|
State v. Totty
| 1-24-79 | Reckless Homicide; Sufficiency of the Evidence; Crim.R. 16; Out-of-State Expert Examination; Admissibility of Evidence; Gunshot Residue Test Refusal; Consciousness of Guilt; Batson Challenge; R.C. 2929.13(F)(8). The defendant-appellant’s conviction for reckless homicide is based on sufficient evidence. The trial court did not err by admitting evidence of the defendant-appellant’s refusal to submit to a gunshot residue test, which the jury could reasonably construe as a consciousness of guilt. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Crim.R. 16 by restricting the defense expert’s examination of the physical murder weapon to a local law enforcement facility rather than permitting its transport out of state. The trial court’s decision rejecting the defendant-appellant’s Batson challenge was not clearly erroneous. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. | Zimmerman | Allen |
6/8/2026
|
6/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2140 |
|
State v. Miller
| 1-25-38 | Evid.R. 803(B)(4); Manifest weight. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding hearsay evidence where defendant did not establish that witness was unavailable. Possession conviction was not against the weight of the evidence. | Waldick | Allen |
6/8/2026
|
6/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2141 |
|
State v. Powell
| 1-25-39 | R.C. 2941.401; Speedy Trial; Motion to Dismiss. The trial court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction when the inmate caused notice of the place of his imprisonment and request for final disposition to be delivered to the warden. | Miller | Allen |
6/8/2026
|
6/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2142 |
|
State v. Fulmer
| 08-24-53 | Rape; R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight; Hearsay; Evid.R. 803(4); Medical Diagnosis Hearsay Exception; Mistrial; Plain Error; Crim.R. 33; Rape Shield Law; R.C. 2907.02; Ex Post Facto; Retroactivity; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Defendant-appellant's rape conviction affirmed. Defendant-appellant's rape conviction was not against the sufficiency or manifest weight of the evidence. The victims' Child Advocacy Center ("CAC") interviews were properly introduced as an Evid.R. 803(4) medical diagnosis and treatment hearsay exception. The trial court had no duty to sua sponte declare a mistrial after an outburst when he properly sustained an objection and provided curative instructions to the jury. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to continue sentencing when there was sufficient time to file a motion for a new trial. The trial court did not err by applying the rape shield law as it applied to evidence of a victim's sexual conduct. The trial court's sentencing was not contrary to Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution or the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Defendant-appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. | Miller | Logan |
6/8/2026
|
6/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2143 |
|
State v. Applegate
| 9-25-34, 9-25-35 | Presumption of Prison; R.C. 2929.13(D); Consecutive Sentences. The record supported the presumption of prison when the defendant was given multiple changes via intervention in lieu of conviction, yet repeatedly committed new offenses. The record supports the findings of the trial court in ordering consecutive sentences. | Willamowski | Marion |
6/8/2026
|
6/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2145 |
|