|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Gentry v. Silver Linings Agency
| C-240036 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — R.C. 2307.60 — CIVIL RECOVERY FOR CRIME VICTIMS — CHILD ENDANGERMENT — WITNESS INTIMIDATION — OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE — UNJUST ENRICHMENT: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant-employer and denying plaintiff-employee’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff-employee’s claim for damages as a crime victim based on defendant-employer’s alleged act of witness intimidation where plaintiff-employee failed to present evidence of an underlying criminal act and was therefore not a “witness” under the meaning of the intimidation statute. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant-employer on plaintiff-employee’s civil claim for obstructing justice where plaintiff-employee failed to present evidence of an underlying crime and therefore did not establish all elements of the obstructing-justice statute and plaintiff-employee was otherwise not a “victim” of the crime of obstructing justice because the State, and not an individual, is the victim of obstructing justice. The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff-employee’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant-employer summary judgment on plaintiff-employee’s unjust-enrichment claim where plaintiff-employee failed to present any evidence of her damages: plaintiff-employee was not entitled to an adverse inference against defendants-employers based on defendants-employers’ claimed failure to turn over receipts submitted by plaintiff-employee where plaintiff-employee did not file a motion to compel, defendants-employers did not violate a court order, and plaintiff-employee failed to establish defendants-employers wrongfully withheld the receipts from plaintiff-employee. | Bock | Hamilton |
11/22/2024
|
11/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5503 |
|
State v. Railey
| C-230559 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — CONFRONTATION CLAUSE HEARSAY — EVIDENCE — PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT — RAPE —PLAIN ERROR — CUMULATIVE ERROR: Even if the statements by the mother of a child indicating that she believed the child’s report of rape against defendant captured on an officer’s body-worn camera did not satisfy the excited utterance hearsay exception, admission of the statements was harmless, because the evidence that defendant raped the child was overwhelming. Statements made by the child’s mother on a phone call inadvertently recorded by an officer’s body-worn camera were nontestimonial and were accordingly not subject to the Confrontation Clause. Statements by the State in closing arguments that mischaracterized a DNA sample recovered from the child’s vaginal area as “the defendant’s DNA” rather than being “consistent” with the defendant’s DNA did not change the outcome of the proceedings and therefore did not rise to the level of plain error. The defendant failed to establish cumulative error where at most one error—the admission of possible hearsay—was deemed harmless. | Kinlsey | Hamilton |
11/22/2024
|
11/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5502 |
|
State v. Jones
| C-220007 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — COUNSEL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – FOURTH AMENDMENT– PROTECTIVE SWEEP – INEVITABLE DISCOVERY – SEARCH WARRANT – AFFIDAVIT – SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE: Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of a consent search and protective sweep of the home. [But see DISSENT: Defendant was not prejudiced by any alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel for failing to challenge the constitutionality of the search and protective sweep of the home because defendant lacked standing to contest the search of a safe found in the home, the protective sweep was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence in the safe would have inevitably been discovered.] The trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence because officers searched the home under a good-faith belief that a tenant had authority to authorize a search of the home, there was probable cause to issue a warrant to search a safe recovered from the home where the facts in the affidavit established a nexus between defendant and the drugs in the safe, and competent and credible evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the officer did not misidentify the tenant as a homeowner in reckless disregard for the truth. [See CONCURRENCE: While the search of the home was conducted in good faith, it is not necessary to reach that issue because the safe would inevitably have been discovered.] The State’s evidence was sufficient to prove that drugs recovered from a safe belonged to defendant because officer testimony and photographs of the contents of the safe showed papers belonging to defendant in the safe alongside drugs and drug paraphernalia. [See CONCURRENCE: The evidence was sufficient to show that defendant had possessed the drugs, and his convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.] | Bock | Hamilton |
11/22/2024
|
11/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5501 |
|
State v. Watterson
| C-240079 | OVI — PROBABLE CAUSE — SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE – FIELD-SOBRIETY TESTING – CRIM.R. 47 – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – FORFEITURE: The trial court did not err when it denied defendant-motorist’s motion to suppress and found that the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest defendant-motorist because a prudent person would believe defendant-motorist was operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol based on the nature of defendant-motorist’s single-vehicle accident, the strong smell of alcohol, defendant-motorist’s imbalance before and during field-sobriety testing, and defendant-motorist’s inability to count sequentially. Defendant-motorist could not argue on appeal that breathalyzer-test results should have been suppressed for alleged noncompliance with the Ohio Administrative Code because that argument was forfeited on appeal as it was raised at the suppression hearing for the first time and not in her motion to suppress, where she only made passing reference to the breathalyzer test and made no mention of the Ohio Administrative Code. | Bock | Hamilton |
11/20/2024
|
11/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5456 |
|
State v. King
| C-240302 | The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress because the officers performed a lawful Terry stop, arrest, and search incident to the arrest where officers observed defendant smoking marijuana while carrying what they suspected was a firearm and then observed defendant jaywalking, when stopped defendant tensed up and pulled his hands away from the officers, and officers told defendant he was being charged with obstruction of official business. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/20/2024
|
11/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5459 |
|
Mallory v. Mallory
| C-240267 | APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL – CIV.R. 60(B) — MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT: Appellant’s brief lacked citations to the record and relevant legal authorities, as required by Ohio and local appellate rules, which constituted an independent basis to overrule all four of appellant’s assignments of error. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for relief from the judgment: the motion was made under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (2), which have one-year filing deadlines, and appellant filed her motion more than one year after the final judgment was entered, and appellant did not demonstrate that she was entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) when she failed to raise that argument below and on appeal only repeated her Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (2) arguments. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/20/2024
|
11/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5458 |
|
State v. Curry
| C-240148 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – REASONABLE SUSPICION – EXCLUSIONARY RULE –SUPPRESSION– PROBABLE CAUSE – MIRANDA – R.C. 4301.64: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from his person where there was reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down of defendant, who was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statement in the absence of Miranda warnings because defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation when he answered the officer’s question concerning the contents of his cup. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress because the police had probable cause to believe that defendant had consumed alcohol while in the vehicle, in violation of R.C. 4301.64, due to the officer testifying that he smelled alcohol on defendant’s breath and defendant’s admission that there was alcohol in his cup. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
11/20/2024
|
11/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5457 |
|
State v. Harris
| C-240105, C-240106, C-240107 | POSTCONVICTION — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — EVIDENTIARY HEARING — RES JUDICATA — SPEEDY TRIAL — INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS: The common pleas court abused its discretion by denying two timely-filed postconviction claims without first holding an evidentiary hearing: petitioner demonstrated substantive grounds for relief entitling her to a hearing where petitioner presented evidence outside the record raising an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to investigate and assert speedy-trial claims under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. | Winkler | Hamilton |
11/15/2024
|
11/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5404 |
|
State v. Truesdell
| C-230671 | GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION - EVIDENCE - RELEVANCE - GROOMING - PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT - APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL - HEARSAY - EVID.R. 803(4) - STATEMENTS FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT - INDICTMENT - JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES: The trial court did not err in admitting evidence that defendant had showed a child victim pornography depicting naked women because that evidence was relevant to show that he was grooming the child victim and normalizing sexual behavior to her. Defendant did not show that any prosecutorial misconduct rose to the level of plain error where that alleged misconduct was made in response to defense counsel’s statements, the trial court gave proper limiting instructions, and the prosecutor’s statements were fair comments on the evidence and did not denigrate defense counsel. Where defendant argued that the prosecutor asked leading questions of all the State’s witnesses, listed 12 pages of the transcript where he alleged that the prosecutor asked leading questions, and did not specify which of the questions were improper, the appellate court will not address that argument because defendant bore the burden to show error by reference to the record, and it was not the court’s duty to root out the alleged improper questions. The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence testimony about statements made by the victim in a forensic interview about the sexual abuse and identifying defendant as the perpetrator because those statements fell within the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis and treatment set forth in Evid.R. 803(4) where the interviewer testified that she had no other agenda than helping the victim feel safe and to obtain appropriate treatment for the victim. There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions for gross sexual imposition and defendant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim presented a detailed, coherent narrative of the defendant’s actions, any inconsistencies in her testimony did not relate to the elements of the offenses, but to the circumstances surrounding those offenses, and the victim’s testimony did not have to be corroborated by physical evidence. Defendant was not deprived of due process where the indictment failed to specify a specific time frame for the offenses because defendant did not present an alibi defense and the State provided him a bill of particulars that described specific factual acts and the location where those acts had occurred. The trial court did not commit plain error in instructing that the jury only needed to find that the offenses took place on a date reasonably near the date claimed in the indictment because precise dates and times are not essential elements of offenses and the instruction tracked pattern jury instructions. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences where the court made the required findings, and those findings were supported by the record. The appellate court may not independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgement for the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Winkler | Hamilton |
11/13/2024
|
11/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5376 |
|
State v. Johnson
| C-240119 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS — PROBABLE CAUSE — NO-CONTEST PLEA — EXPLANATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES: The trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress where the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for operating a vehicle while impaired because defendant’s driving infraction caused an accident, defendant admitted to consuming alcohol and had a strong odor of alcohol, slurred some words, had watery eyes, and was belligerent to the victims. The trial court did not err in finding defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle while impaired where defendant’s pled no contest, and the explanation of circumstances that defendant admitted were true included the fact that he operated the vehicle while under the influence. | Zayas | Hamilton |
11/13/2024
|
11/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5377 |
|
In re S.B.
| C-240040 | R.C. 5103.15(B)(2) — R.C. 2121.23(A)(9) — JURISDICTION — JUVENILE COURT: Under In re T.J.B., 2014-Ohio-2028 (1st Dist.), the juvenile court did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction over a custody action where the actual legal issue in question was the validity of a voluntary permanent-surrender agreement entered into between petitioner birth mother and a private adoption agency under R.C. 5103.15(B)(2). | Zayas | Hamilton |
11/8/2024
|
11/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5338 |
|
Ijakoli v. Alungbe
| C-230665, C-230673 | DOMESTIC RELATIONS — CUSTODY MODIFICATION — BEST INTEREST – COMPENSATORY PARENTING TIME – VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR – WAIVER: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant-father’s motion to modify the custody order because the trial court applied the correct legal standard and weighed the relevant best-interest factors, and the evidence shows that plaintiff-mother had provided support to help address their son’s behavioral and emotional issues, and defendant-father’s conduct contributed to a combative familial dynamic and negatively affected the children. The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider defendant-father’s appeal of the trial court’s contempt decision after the trial court declared him a vexatious litigator and defendant-father was denied leave to institute an appeal of the contempt decision. Defendant-father forfeited his challenge to the trial court’s vexatious-litigator declaration when he failed to oppose plaintiff-mother’s motion to declare him a vexatious litigator. | Bock | Hamilton |
11/6/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5287 |
|
Finn v. Seiser
| C-240047 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — MANIFEST WEIGHT — BREACH OF CONTRACT — SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE — IMPLIED DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING: The trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs sellers’ motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs’ claims as to whether defendants buyers breached the parties’ contract for the purchase of a home rested upon genuine disputes of material facts as to the condition of the home and the cause of water damage and rendered resolution at the summary judgment stage inappropriate. The trial court’s finding that defendants buyers did not breach the parties’ contract was not against the manifest weight of the evidence as plaintiffs sellers failed to prove that they specifically performed under the terms of the contract. The trial court’s finding that defendants buyers did not breach the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence as plaintiffs sellers failed to prove that defendants’ cancellation of the contract on the basis of insurance costs was not permitted under the contract. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
11/6/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5288 |
|
In re K.H.
| C-240450, C-240519 | PARENTAL TERMINATION – PERMANENT CUSTODY: In appeals brought by mother and custody petitioner from the juvenile court’s decision to award permanent custody of the child to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services, the juvenile court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the custody petition: the petitioner spent only a few weeks with the child shortly after his birth, mother’s mental-health and drug-addiction issues have prevented her from being able to effectively parent, and mother also had another child with whom her parental rights had been involuntarily terminated; the child is bonded to his foster parents. | Winkler | Hamilton |
11/6/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5292 |
|
State v. Duncan
| C-240135 | OVI – SUPPRESSION – WITNESSES – OFFICER TESTIMONY – PROBABLE CAUSE: The trial court did not err when it held that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant in partially denying her motion to suppress, as the officers had sufficient information that would lead a prudent person to believe that defendant was operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the officers to testify as to their observations of defendant throughout the administration of the field sobriety test, even though the results of the test were inadmissible, because the officers were permitted to testify as to mere observations, as any lay witness could. The trial court’s judgment, convicting defendant of OVI, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence nor was there insufficient evidence to support it because even though some evidence weighed in defendant’s favor, the evidence did not heavily weigh against the judgment. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/6/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5290 |
|
In re E.K.
| C-240229 | JUVENILE COURT — SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION — R.C. 2152.02 — PAROLE VIOLATION — JUV.R. 9 — MOOT: Where a person is adjudicated a delinquent child prior to attaining 18 years of age, the juvenile court has jurisdiction over the person for matters related to the adjudication until the person attains 21 years of age. The juvenile court erred in dismissing a complaint for a parole violation on the ground that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the person that was the subject of the complaint where the person had not yet attained 21 years of age. The juvenile court’s dismissal of a complaint for a parole violation could not be upheld pursuant to Juv.R. 9(A) where the juvenile court plainly dismissed the complaint based on a mistaken belief that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and where the dismissal was not based on a need to protect either the accused or the community or because the court believed that continuing with a prosecution of the parole violation was not in the accused’s best interest. An appeal from the juvenile court’s dismissal of a complaint on jurisdictional grounds was not moot where a live controversy remained following a reversal of the jurisdictional determination and where the juvenile court could grant meaningful relief. | Crouse | Hamilton |
11/6/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5291 |
|
Cintrifuse Landlord, L.L.C. v. Panino, L.L.C.
| C-240062 | SANCTIONS — R.C. 2323.51 — CIV.R.11 — UNNECESSARY DELAY: The trial court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions against defendants and their counsel where the record lacked competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s determination that counsel’s day-of-trial request for a continuance to file an affidavit of disqualification was done for the improper purpose of causing unnecessary delay. | Zayas | Hamilton |
11/6/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5289 |
|
Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
| C-230449 | R.C. CH. 2506 — ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL — ZONING — JURISDICTION: In this administrative appeal, the trial court did not err in upholding the decision of the appellee Board of Zoning Appeals to affirm a legal notice of violation that was issued to appellant for a violation of Section 1125.07 of the Village of St. Bernard’s Zoning Ordinance where appellant erected or constructed a sign in violation of Section 711.07(e) of the Village’s Codified Ordinances, and Section 711.07(e) was incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance through Section 1185.01(c).The trial court did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction in an administrative appeal to address appellant’s facial constitutional challenge to Chapter 711 of the Village of St. Bernard’s Codified Ordinances where appellant does not dispute that it was seeking a general declaration as to the unconstitutionality of Chapter 711. [See CONCURRENCE: Appellant would likely have prevailed on its challenge to the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision had it raised the issue of nonconformity under Section 711.05(c) of the Village of St. Bernard’s Zoning Ordinance.] | Zayas | Hamilton |
11/6/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5286 |
|
State v. Flantoill
| C-240120 | RESISTING ARREST – MOTION TO DISMISS – INDICTMENT – COMPLAINT – PLAIN ERROR: The trial court plainly erred when it dismissed the charge of resisting arrest pursuant to a pretrial motion to dismiss because it looked beyond the face of the complaint and began weighing each side’s evidence. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/1/2024
|
11/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5224 |
|
In re A.C.
| C-240417 | LEGAL CUSTODY – PERMANENT CUSTODY – INDEPENDENT REVIEW: The juvenile court erred when it inappropriately applied appellate standards of review when reviewing objections to the magistrate’s decision to award permanent custody of the two children to Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services ("HCJFS"), terminating the grandmother’s legal custodianship, which required an independent review of the record. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/30/2024
|
10/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5185 |
|
Ho v. Evans
| C-240063 | R.C. 2323.52 – VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR OR CONDUCT: The common pleas court erred by granting defendant’s R.C.2323.52 motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigator where there was no clear and convincing evidence presented that plaintiff habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds engaged in vexatious conduct. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/30/2024
|
10/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5184 |
|
State v. Collins
| C-240011 | THEFT – R.C. 2913.02 – POWER OF ATTORNEY – UNIFORM POWER OF ATTORNEY ACT – VICTIMS RIGHTS – MARSY’S LAW – RESTITUTION – R.C. 2929.18 – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: Where the State introduced evidence that defendant had spent her principal’s funds under his power of attorney but had left his nursing-home bills unpaid, and where the State offered no evidence that particular expenditures went beyond the scope authorized in the power of attorney, the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to convict defendant for the theft of the full amount of the unpaid nursing- home bills under R.C. 2913.02(A)(2). Where the State introduced evidence that defendant, under her principal’s power of attorney, withdrew her principal’s funds to gamble, while nevertheless failing to pay her principal’s nursing-home bills, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for the theft of the funds spent gambling under R.C. 2913.02(A)(2), and her conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Where a victim of theft owes money to a nursing home, which he can no longer pay because of the theft, the nursing home is not a “victim” of that theft entitled to restitution under R.C. 2929.18 and Marsy’s Law, because the nursing home was only indirectly injured by the theft. Where a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel is predicated on counsel’s failure to introduce certain evidence at trial, that claim will nearly always fail on direct appeal, where the reviewing court may not consider evidence outside the record, and is better suited for a postconviction proceeding. Where a hearsay statement explained the motive for otherwise undisputed expenditures, but where the expenditures themselves were sufficient to prove theft, trial counsel’s failure to object to the hearsay statement did not prejudice defendant. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/25/2024
|
10/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5112 |
|
Weckel v. Cole + Russell Architects, Inc.
| C-210425, C-230535, C-230543 | BREACH OF CONTRACT — RES JUDICATA — ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION — JURISDICTION — LIMITED REMAND —PREJUDGMENT INTEREST — R.C. 1343.03(A) — ABUSE OF DISCRETION — ATTORNEY FEES — BAD FAITH: The trial court did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his breach-of-contract and declaratory-judgment actions and denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment where defendant failed to establish either of its affirmative defenses of res judicata or anticipatory repudiation. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s and plaintiff’s respective Civ.R. 60(B) motions on limited remand from the court of appeals, where the scope of the remand was limited to plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and prejudgment interest. The trial court did not err in awarding plaintiff prejudgment interest on his breach-of-contract claim from the date that it determined plaintiff’s claim became ripe where, although the trial court’s choice of accrual date was years later than it may have been, choosing the later date was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiff asked for that date; however, the trial court abused its discretion in setting the prejudgment interest rate at the applicable rate on the date that plaintiff’s first lawsuit ended because the trial court did not base the rate determination on the plain language of the parties’ contract. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees where the trial court’s finding that defendant did not litigate in bad faith was supported by the record. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/25/2024
|
10/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5111 |
|
State v. Jackson
| C-240066 | CRIM.R. 33(B) — UNAVOIDABLE PREVENTION: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a Crim.R. 33(A)(1) motion for a new trial where defendant could not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds upon which he now relies to support his new-trial motion. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5077 |
|
State v. Thompson
| C-240211 | EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the officer testified that only a small part of the gun butt was visible in defendant’s pocket, he could not determine it was a gun until he looked down at the pocket, and the trial court found the testimony to be credible. | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5082 |
|
Ma v. Cincinnati Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr.
| C-240166 | EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT – BURDEN OF PROOF – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – JUST CAUSE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE: The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury to consider “any other evidence” that the jury found formed the basis of the employment contract or when it did not instruct the jury that defendant-employer had the burden of proving “just cause,” as it has not been definitively deemed an affirmative defense in Ohio. The trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant-employer was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and it did not err when it permitted references to the government of the People’s Republic of China and plaintiff-employee’s ethnicity, as it related to damages and his claim that he was the only individual fired for funding shortcomings. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5079 |
|
In re K.C.
| C-240207 | DUE PROCESS – RESTITUTION HEARING: The trial court erred, in violation of juvenile’s due process rights, by denying a restitution hearing when juvenile sought a hearing to challenge the restitution amount requested by the victim. | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5081 |
|
State v. Johnson
| C-230641, C-240112 | POSTCONVICTION — DNA TESTING — OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s application for postconviction DNA testing where the court stated its reasons for denying the application in its entry and where DNA testing of the evidence, even if it excluded defendant as a contributor, would not be outcome determinative as defendant’s conviction for murder was primarily based on reliable eyewitness testimony. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5074 |
|
State v. Dixon
| C-240074 | THEFT — R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Defendant’s conviction for theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) was not against the weight or sufficiency of the evidence where the State presented evidence that defendant spoke with the manager of a hardware store about an audio cable, the manger handed the cable to defendant, the manager later heard the sound of packaging opening, defendant checked out without purchasing the cable, the manger found packaging of a cable opened with the cable missing, and the store only had one of the specific cables in stock. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5078 |
|
State v. Ward
| C-230498, C-240157 | EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – NOTICE OF ALIBI: Defendant’s convictions for failure to comply, reckless operation, and driving under suspension were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where one officer testified that he identified defendant based on video and photos of defendant, one officer testified he got a good look at defendant, both provided in-court identifications, and the trial court found the officers’ testimony to be credible. Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a notice of alibi where the record fails to establish that counsel knew of defendant’s alleged alibi defense. | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5073 |
|
State v. Keese
| C-240020 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – PROBABLE CAUSE – REASONABLE SUSPICION – SEARCH WARRANT – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – STANDING – SENTENCING – ALLIED OFFENSES – R.C. 2925.03: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from his person where there was reasonable suspicion to stop him, permitting the officers to conduct a protective sweep of defendant’s person where a firearm, narcotics, and drug paraphernalia were recovered. The trial court erred in finding that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the residence of his girlfriend where the record shows that defendant was an overnight guest and had an expectation of privacy. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment where the affidavit in support of the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The trial court erred by imposing separate sentences for two counts that were allied offenses that should have been merged at sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2925.03. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5075 |
|
State v. Williams
| C-240064, C-240037 | PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT – IMPROPER VOUCHING – PLAIN ERROR – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: The prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of the State’s witnesses during closing argument by commenting that the witnesses were truthful, but defendant was limited to a plain-error review where no objection was raised to the comments, and the error was not reversible where defendant failed to establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the prosecutor’s comments. Where both the victim and an independent witness testified that defendant ordered his dog to attack the victim, and the victim testified that defendant hit her, defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5076 |
|
In re C.C.
| C-240365 | PARENTAL TERMINATION – MAGISTRATE – OBJECTIONS – JUV.R. 40 - INDEPENDENT REVIEW: The juvenile court failed to independently review the record following mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decision terminating her parental rights where the juvenile court’s judgment repeatedly referred to an appellate standard of review and held that the magistrate had not abused his discretion. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/18/2024
|
10/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5012 |
|
In re C.C
| C-240373 | PERMANENT CUSTODY – JUV.R. 40 – MAGISTRATE’S DECISION –PLAIN ERROR - MANIFEST WEIGHT: The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody of father’s child to a children services agency where father failed to object to the magistrate’s decision, there was no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, and the factual findings in the magistrate’s decision supported the trial court’s judgment. Father’s claim that the trial court’s judgment granting permanent custody of his child to a children services agency was against the manifest weight of the evidence was meritless where father failed to object to the magistrate’s decision, the juvenile court’s judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision can only be reviewed for plain error, and a claim that a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence can never rise to the level of plain error. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/18/2024
|
10/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5013 |
|
State v. Conley
| C-240223 | GUILTY PLEA – CRIM.R. 32.1 – PRESENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the record shows that the trial court did not consider all of the appropriate factors at the hearing on his motion, and the defendant was not given an adequate opportunity to present his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4985 |
|
Lucas v. Ohio State Dental Bd.
| C-240272 | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL — REVIEW OF SANCTION — DENTAL LICENSE SUSPENSION — CAUSATION — ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the Ohio State Dental Board’s order suspending appellant-dentist’s dental license and increasing the sanction recommended by the hearing examiner even though one of the agency’s reasons for increasing the penalty based on the outcome of the dental surgery could only be interpreted as referring to the death of the appellant’s patient and there was no evidence in the record establishing a causal connection between the patient’s death and appellant’s violation of the standard of care, because appellant failed to challenge the agency’s separate and independent basis for increasing the sanction and was therefore unable to demonstrate error as courts must defer to an agency’s sanction provided that sanction is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4986 |
|
In re C.W.
| C-240383 | CONTINUANCE – OJBECTIONS – PLAIN ERROR – R.C. 2151.414 – PERMANENT CUSTODY: No plain error resulted from the trial court’s denial of a continuance that mother requested because she was incarcerated where mother’s counsel participated in the hearing in mother’s absence, mother was not prevented from utilizing an alternate vehicle to present her testimony, one continuance had already been granted because of mother’s incarceration, the hearing had been in progress for approximately seven months, and the child was in need of a permanent placement. The trial court’s determination that a grant of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was in the child’s best interest was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where mother had been unable to consistently visit with the child or participate in services due to her repeated incarceration, the child had been in agency custody for approximately 21 months at the time that the motion for permanent custody was filed, and the child was in need of a legally secure permanent placement that could not be obtained absent a grant of permanent custody. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4987 |
|
First Fin. Bank v. Tailored Fund Cap, L.L.C.
| C-230626 | R.C. 1309.332(B) — CONVERSION — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE — UCC 9-332 – DEPOSIT ACCOUNT: Absent collusion between the transferee and the account holder, R.C. 1309.332(B) bars recovery for conversion by a party holding a first-priority security interest in accounts receivable from a transferee who takes these funds from a deposit account. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4982 |
|
State v. Wilson
| C-230653 | MISTRIAL – CONSENT – EVIDENCE – DOUBLE JEOPARDY: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges against her on double-jeopardy grounds after sua sponte granting a mistrial in defendant’s first trial where defendant failed to oppose the declaration of a mistrial and instead consented. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4983 |
|
State v. Hinsch
| C-240032 | ATTEMPT — SEXUAL IMPOSITION — SEXUAL CONTACT —KNOWLEDGE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: The State’s evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of attempted sexual imposition because a rational trier of fact could find that the victim’s testimony and a recorded phone call proved that defendant made a substantial step towards touching the victim’s erogenous zone when he moved his hand up the victim’s leg and over her buttocks through her clothes; that defendant touched the victim to sexually arouse or gratify himself because defendant moaned as he touched the victim; and that defendant knew this sexual contact was offensive to the victim, defendant’s former stepdaughter, who viewed him as a father figure and froze when he touched her leg. Defendant’s conviction for attempted sexual imposition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim’s testimony established that defendant attempted to touch the victim’s erogenous zone to sexually arouse or gratify himself despite him knowing that this would offend the victim, and the victim’s testimony was corroborated by a recorded phone call played at trial. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4984 |
|
State v. Wallace
| C-220509, C-220510 | WAIVER – COMPETENCY – RIGHT TO COUNSEL – SELF-REPRESENTATION – CRIM.R. 44: The trial court erred by failing to engage in the necessary colloquy pursuant to Crim.R. 44 to determine whether defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, where the necessity of the colloquy was heightened by concerns surrounding defendant’s competency to stand trial. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/9/2024
|
10/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4886 |
|
In re L.D.
| C-240401 | PARENTAL TERMINATION – PERMANENT CUSTODY: In father’s appeal from the juvenile court’s decision terminating his parental rights and awarding permanent custody of his children to a children’s services agency, the juvenile court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: the children had been in the custody of the agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and father had a history of drug-related crimes and father abandoned the children. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/9/2024
|
10/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4888 |
|
In re J.S.
| C-240116 | LEGAL CUSTODY — R.C. 2151.415(D)(3) — R.C. 2151.415(A)(3) — BEST INTEREST: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody to maternal grandparents under R.C. 2151.415(D)(3) and (A)(3) where the juvenile court appropriately considered the best-interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and the juvenile court’s best-interest findings were supported by competent and credible evidence in the record, and the juvenile court’s decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. [But see DISSENT: The practice of removing children from a parent-victim of domestic violence raises substantive due-process and policy concerns, and the juvenile court abused its discretion in awarding legal custody to maternal grandparents absent a sufficient finding that removing the children from a parent-victim was in their best interest.] | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/9/2024
|
10/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4887 |
|
State v. Griffin
| C-240039 | FELONIOUS ASSAULT – SELF-DEFENSE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – POST-RELEASE CONTROL – SENTENCING: Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the State disproved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not at fault for starting the affray. The trial court erred when it failed to advise defendant of the required post-release control notifications at sentencing. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/4/2024
|
10/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4806 |
|
Cincinnati ex rel. Miller v. Cincinnati
| C-230683 | R.C. 733.59 — TAXPAYER STANDING — PUBLIC RIGHT: Relator lacked standing as a taxpayer to challenge respondent city’s ordinance that excused density and setback requirements under the zoning code for a property owned by nonprofit intervenor-respondent, because a taxpayer has standing under R.C. 733.59 when the lawsuit seeks to vindicate a public right and relator failed to identify a public right that he sought to vindicate with his claims. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/4/2024
|
10/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4805 |
|
State v. Dod
| C-240197 | SENTENCING – JURISDICTION – COMMUNITY CONTROL: The trial court erred when it imposed a prison sentence subsequent to a community control violation, where the trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter its own final sentence and did not comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) when it failed to give defendant the statutorily required warnings. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/4/2024
|
10/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4807 |
|
State v. Cook
| C-240241, C-240243 | DRUGS—EVIDENCE—SUFFICENCY—WEIGHT—CRIM.R. 11–SENTENCING–R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)–R.C. 2921.331(D): Defendant’s conviction for possession of heroin was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where body-worn camera footage showed and an officer testified that defendant was seated next to drugs in plain view, had numerous cell phones around his person, and had a large amount of cash on his person. Defendant’s guilty plea violated Crim.R. 11(C) and was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made because the trial court failed to advise defendant that a guilty plea to a failure to comply charge carries a mandatory consecutive sentence under R.C. 2921.331(D). The trial court erred when it failed to advise defendant at sentencing of the mandatory Regan Tokes Law advisements, pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i)-(v). | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/2/2024
|
10/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4771 |
|
State v. Jackson
| C-230660, C-230661 | SEARCH AND SEIZURE – WEAPONS : The trial court did not err by suppressing evidence of firearms where officers did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop Defendants’ vehicle and to effectuate a felony arrest because Defendants did not obstruct official business by driving away from officers without being commanded to stop and because the circumstances otherwise did not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. [See CONCURRENCE: The inevitable discovery doctrine may have rendered the warrantless search of guns found in plain view in the backseat of a car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment had the State preserved it for appellate review.] [But See DISSENT: The police had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that justified an investigative stop where the officers had been informed earlier in the day that shots had been fired on the same street as the stop and that tensions were rising between groups of juveniles, it was in a high-crime area, it was rainy and dark when the officers approached the car with tinted windows preventing them from seeing inside, and defendants made furtive movements before fleeing the scene.] | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/2/2024
|
10/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4770 |
|
S&T Bank, Inc. v. Advance Merchant Servs.
| C-230448 | CIV.R. 12(B)(2) — PERSONAL JURISDICTION — CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM — CIVIL CONSPIRACY — FRAUD — INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT: The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff bank’s claims for fraud and civil conspiracy against certain defendant merchant cash advance entities where the complaint alleges that certain defendant merchant cash advance entities had actual knowledge of the financial insolvency of the borrower and actual knowledge that the borrower was unlawfully kiting funds from certain banks including plaintiff bank to repay debts, including repayment of the financing provided by the merchant cash advance entities, yet continued to advance substantial sums of money to the borrower only with shorter repayment periods and higher daily withdraw requirements. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff bank’s claim for interference with a security agreement where, regardless of whether all the other elements of the claim are met, the complaint failed to adequately alleged resulting damages. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff bank’s claims against certain defendant merchant cash advance entities for lack of personal jurisdiction where the complaint failed to allege any facts indicating that these entities transacted business in Ohio or caused tortious injury in Ohio, or that these entities were merely alter egos of other defendant merchant cash advance entities. | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/1/2024
|
10/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4757 |
|
State ex rel. Parikh v. Berkowitz
| C-240187 | ORIGINAL WRITS – MANDAMUS –PROHIBITION – R.C. 1901.31 – Sup.R.44-47:The municipal court judges had a clear legal right to order the clerk to rescind a policy that disabled remote online access to certain categories of case documents. The clerk had a clear legal duty to follow the administrative order instructing him to rescind the policy and restore case access. The municipal court judges lacked an adequate remedy at law because neither holding the clerk in contempt nor a declaratory judgment could compel the clerk to restore access. The clerk was not entitled to a writ of prohibition because the municipal court judges acted within their authority to prevent the clerk from usurping a judicial power, namely the power to balance if an individual’s privacy interests outweigh the public’s right to access court records. The clerk acted beyond the scope of his office in issuing a policy disabling remote online access to certain cases and disobeying his court’s order to rescind the policy and restore access. | Piper | Hamilton |
9/27/2024
|
9/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4686 |
|