|
|
Taylor v. Taylor
| C-250367 | DIVORCE — R.C. 3105.71 — CLASSIFICATION OF MARITAL PROPERTY — DIVSION OF MARITAL PROPERTY — APPRECIATION: The domestic relations court did not err in its property division with respect to the Adjustment and Indemnity Escrows where the record established that the funds contained in those accounts were earnings paid out as part of the sale of Husband’s business interest during the marriage.The domestic relations court’s property division with respect to the real estate was not an abuse of discretion where no evidence in the record showed that the appreciation in the value of the home, which Wife had purchased before the marriage, was due to anything other than market forces: the appreciation in the value of the home was passive and that appreciated value of the home remained Wife’s separate property. | Moore | Hamilton |
6/10/2026
|
6/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2168 |
|
In re K.J.
| C-250488, C-250489, C-250490, C-250491 | JUVENILE — SUPPRESSION — REASONABLE SUSPICION — SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON — TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE — JAYWALKING — OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS: The juvenile court erred where, after a suppression hearing, it found that police had probable cause to arrest the juvenile for obstructing official business after he ran from them without first determining whether police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. The juvenile’s delinquency adjudication for carrying a concealed weapon was supported by sufficient evidence where officers observed the juvenile wearing a crossbody bag while running from police, which they found in an apartment into which he fled, where officers found a gun hidden in the apartment, and where the juvenile did not deny hiding a gun that day. The juvenile’s delinquency adjudication for tampering with evidence was supported by sufficient evidence where the juvenile ran from police officers who were investigating ShotSpotter alerts and fled into an apartment in which police found a gun hidden in a closet and where the juvenile did not deny hiding a gun that day. The juvenile’s delinquency adjudication for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence where a police officer testified that he saw the juvenile jaywalk and where the juvenile ran from an officer who attempted to stop him for the offense. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
6/10/2026
|
6/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2169 |
|
In re A.B.
| C-250575 | JUVENILE — SEX OFFENSE — CLASSIFICATION — DISPOSITION — ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The juvenile court’s reclassification of a child adjudicated delinquent for sexual battery as a Tier I sex offender following an end-of-disposition hearing was not an abuse of the juvenile court’s discretionary authority where the juvenile court considered the relevant evidence and statutory factors prescribed by R.C. 2152.83(D), 2950.11(K), and 2929.12(C)-(B) and its findings were supported by observations and assessments by mental-health professionals and statements from the victim. | Bock | Hamilton |
6/10/2026
|
6/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2170 |
|
State v. Estill
| C-250565 | OTHER ACTS — EVID.R. 404(B) — HEARSAY — EVID.R. 1003 — BEST EVIDENCE RULE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — TELECOMMUNICATIONS HARASSMENT: The trial court did not plainly err in admitting “other acts” testimony where there was no evidence in the record that the State’s failure to provide notice pursuant to Evid.R. 404(b) was in bad faith. The trial court did not plainly err in admitting hearsay evidence where the record did not affirmatively disclose that the trial court considered the evidence in reaching its verdict. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of a screenshot of text messages pursuant to Evid.R. 1003 where the photographs were duplicates under the best evidence rule and there was no genuine question as to the authenticity of the originals. Defendant did not meet her burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel where she did not show a reasonable probability that counsel’s failure to object to hearsay and “other acts” evidence affected the outcome of the trial. Defendant’s conviction for telecommunications harassment was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where, although the victim did not recognize the phone number from which the harassing messages were sent, the messages were similar to those defendant previously sent via Facebook before the victim blocked defendant; where an online record search of a law enforcement reporting agency connected defendant to the number from which the messages were sent; and where defendant sent multiple messages which made the victim fear for her safety and that of her unborn child. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
6/5/2026
|
6/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2101 |
|
State v. Davis
| C-250648 | OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS — AFFIRMATIVE ACT — SUBSTANTIAL STOPPAGE — FORFEITED ARGUMENTS — PLAIN ERROR: Defendant’s conviction for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence and was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant committed affirmative acts in the form of physically resisting the officers while they were trying to arrest him by pulling away when one officer grabbed his wrist, struggling to stay on his back once on the ground, and keeping one arm pinned beneath him while the officers attempted to apply handcuffs; also, defendant’s acts hampered or impeded the officers in the performance of their official duties by delaying the officers’ attempts to take defendant into custody and, although the arrest was accomplished in approximately 60 seconds, there is no temporal requirement for substantial stoppage. Where defendant failed to argue before the trial court that the obstructing-official-business statute only applies to an individual who is not under arrest and that the statute requires an illegal act and not just an affirmative act, and where defendant further failed to argue plain error in his appellate brief, defendant forfeited the arguments. | Bock | Hamilton |
6/5/2026
|
6/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2102 |
|