| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Burroughs
| 3-25-23, 3-25-24 | Community control; Review of findings that community control was violated; Termination of community control; Imposition of prison sentences for violations of community control. The trial court did not err in finding that defendant-appellant had violated the terms of community control and in imposing incarceration as a result. | Waldick | Crawford |
1/20/2026
|
1/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-166 |
|
State v. Moore
| 9-24-56 | Law-Of-The-Case Doctrine. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the decision of an appellate court in a prior appeal will ordinarily be followed in a later appeal in the same case and court absent extraordinary circumstances. Since the issue of double jeopardy was fully briefed, argued, and decided in the defendant-appellant’s interlocutory appeal, we adhere to the law-of-the-case doctrine and decline to revisit our prior decision. | Zimmerman | Marion |
1/20/2026
|
1/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-167 |
|
State v. Laidlaw
| 14-25-28 | Felonious Assault; Self-Defense; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Verdict Form; Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel. The jury did not lose its way in rejecting the defendant-appellant’s claim of self-defense. There is no requirement for a separate jury finding or verdict form regarding self-defense. The defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective in his handling of the verdict forms or in failing to request an instruction on the inferior degree offense of aggravated assault. | Zimmerman | Union |
1/20/2026
|
1/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-168 |
|
State v. Meeks
| 16-24-12; 16-24-13 | Evid.R. 611(A); Abuse of Discretion; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to recall the victim for the limited purpose of identifying the appellant-defendant in the courtroom. The defendant-appellant’s rape conviction in count three is not against the manifest weight of the evidence because it is well within the province of the jury to find the testimony of the victim more credible than that of the appellant-defendant. The trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences and the record supports the trial court’s findings. | Zimmerman | Wyandot |
1/12/2026
|
1/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-80 |
|
Deitz v. Shelby Cty. Clerk of Court
| 17-25-10 | Administrative Search Warrant; Trespass; R.C. 2506.04; Appellate record. A person who enters onto a property with the authorization of the landowner does not commit trespass. R.C. 2506.04 provides the standards of review for decisions or orders that are subject to R.C. 2506.01(A). Appellate review is limited to the matters in the record. | Willamowski | Shelby |
1/12/2026
|
1/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-63 |
|
In re K.S.
| 14-25-13 | Sufficiency; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Rape; R.C. R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); Confrontation Clause; Evid.R. 803(4); Child Competency; Evid.R. 807; Remote Testimony; R.C. 2152.81; Harmless Error; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. The adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s rape adjudications are based on sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because the child victim’s statements in a Child Advocacy Center (“CAC”) interview were primarily for medical diagnosis, they were admissible under Evid.R. 803(4) and were nontestimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. As to the admission of any arguably testimonial evidence, since it was a bench trial, it is presumed that the trial court did not consider any inadmissible evidence for any purpose. Because the child victim’s CAC interview was admissible under Evid.R. 803(4), no separate competency determination was required under Evid.R. 807. The trial court erred by concluding that R.C. 2152.81 automatically requires remote testimony based on the age of the witness; however, such error was harmless. The adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective. | Zimmerman | Union |
1/12/2026
|
1/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-79 |
|
Capital One, N.A. v. Jones
| 5-25-14 | Summary Judgment; Breach of Contract; Action on an Account; Evid.R. 803(6); Civ.R. 37; Civ.R. 56(F). The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee on its claim for unpaid credit card debt. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant-appellant's motion to compel discovery or failing to impose sanctions. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
1/12/2026
|
1/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-62 |
|
State v. Holdcraft
| 3-25-10 | The defendant-appellant’s sentence is contrary to law because the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory sex offender registration notification requirements of R.C. 2929.19 and R.C. 2950.03 at the time of sentencing. | Zimmerman | Crawford |
1/12/2026
|
1/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-61 |
|
State v. Malloy
| 1-25-02 | Repeat-Violent-Offender Specification; R.C. 2924.149; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Evid.R. 611(A); Constitutional Right to Testify. The trial court did not err by determining the defendant-appellant’s status as a repeat violent offender after the jury found him guilty of the underlying criminal charge. The defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective because the trial court reasonably controlled the mode and manner of the presentation of evidence of the defendant-appellant’s prior convictions. Nothing in the record suggests that the defendant-appellant wished to testify and was denied the opportunity to do so. | Zimmerman | Allen |
1/5/2026
|
1/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-14 |