|
|
State v. Smith
| C-250485 | MURDER — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER DISABILITY — SELF-DEFENSE — MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — “STAND YOUR GROUND” — DUTY TO WITHDRAW — CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES — R.C. 2929.14: The State met its burden to disprove at least one element of defendant’s self-defense claim by presenting evidence to show that defendant caused the affray leading to the shooting that left two other people injured and another dead; therefore, the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error in its instructions to the jury on self-defense and the instruction did not conflict with Ohio’s “Stand Your Ground” law where the court specifically instructed the jury that defendant had no duty to retreat if he was in a place where he lawfully had a right to be and found that defendant was not trespassing when the shooting occurred. The trial court did not commit plain error by permitting the State to make comments during its closing argument regarding evidence that went toward the consciousness of guilt where the comments were based on evidence that was in the record. Where defense counsel failed to object to a question that the State posed to a witness as to whether the shooting would have occurred if defendant had not approached the group with a gun, the trial court did not err by sustaining the State’s objection to defense counsel’s similar question, particularly where the record bears out the obvious conclusion that the shooting would not have occurred had defendant not approached the victims while pointing a gun. Defendant’s consecutive sentences were not contrary to law: defendant concedes that the trial court made the requisite statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14 at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry, and the consecutive sentences were supported by the record. | Moore | Hamilton |
11/6/2026
|
11/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4405 |
|
Ellison v. Ellison
| C-260069 | ATTORNEY’S FEES — EVID.R. 408 — R.C. 3105.73 — SEPARATE PROPERTY — TRACING: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding husband attorney’s fees after considering wife’s conduct during settlement negotiations, because the evidence was offered for a purpose other than establishing liability and was therefore properly admitted under Evid.R. 408. In awarding attorney’s fees under R.C. 3105.73, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering wife’s conduct that unnecessarily prolonged resolution of the divorce, because the statute does not require a finding of misconduct and does not require a balancing of the parties’ conduct. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a parcel of real property was husband’s separate property where husband sufficiently traced mortgage payments made from a joint account to rental income from the property that he deposited into that account. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
11/6/2026
|
11/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4406 |
|
State v. Ezeh
| C-250365 | JURY TRIAL – R.C. 2903.21 — EVID.R. 404(B) – EVID.R. 403 — PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE – CUMULATIVE ERROR: The trial court did not erroneously admit other acts evidence. Appellant also fails to show that the prosecutor improperly made a golden rule argument or that the trial court improperly instructed the jury to put themselves in the shoes of a party to the case. Additionally, appellant’s conviction for aggravated menacing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. And appellant’s cumulative error argument fails because he does not show any trial court error. | Dingus | Hamilton |
11/4/2026
|
11/4/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4360 |
|
State v. McCrary
| C-260008 | GUILTY PLEA - ALFORD PLEA – CRIM.R. 32.1 – MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA: The trial court carefully considered whether defendant entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea and did not err in accepting defendant’s guilty plea without conducting a heightened inquiry under Alford v. North Carolina, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), because defendant’s inability to recall the commission of the offense was not a contemporaneous assertion of innocence accompanying his guilty plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1 because the request was equivocal and unsupported by specific facts demonstrating a manifest injustice. | Siebert | Hamilton |
10/28/2026
|
10/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4263 |
|
LVNV Funding, L.L.C. v. Higgins
| C-260078 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — ASSIGNMENT — AUTHENTICATION — JUDICIAL NOTICE — EVIDENCE — STANDING: The trial court did not err in failing to consider defendant-debtor’s requests for judicial notice under Evid.R. 201(D) where the requests were not relevant to the issues at hand and did not pertain to adjudicative facts. The trial court’s determination that plaintiff-creditor was not a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was immaterial because defendant failed to submit evidence on the other required elements for a violation of the Act. Summary judgment was proper in an action on a credit-card account where plaintiff authenticated assignment documents via interrogatory responses and defendant lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assignment. | Nestor | Hamilton |
10/23/2026
|
10/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4191 |
|