|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Raines
| 14-23-40 | Appellate sentencing review; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b); Maximum sentences; Consecutive sentences. The judgment of sentence entered in the trial court is affirmed as the record does not establish that maximum and consecutive sentences imposed were clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Union |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2401 |
|
Holland v. Jones
| 1-23-80 | Motion to Dismiss; Summary Judgment. Summary judgment properly awarded where no genuine issue of material fact was presented with regard to former property owner allegedly committing fraudulent misrepresentation. | Waldick | Allen |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2398 |
|
Stratton-Phillips v. Phillips
| 8-23-27, 8-23-30 | Divorce; Income calculation; R.C. 3119.05. The trial court erred in basing child support and spousal support orders on an income calculation that was not done pursuant to R.C. 3119.05. | Waldick | Logan |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2399 |
|
Freytag v. Freytag
| 17-23-14 | Marital Property; Separate Property; Valuation; Manifest Weight; Continuance; Self-Representation. Pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as litigants with retained counsel and must accept the consequences of his or her own mistakes. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital. The party arguing that property is separate bears the burden of establishing that asset is not marital. Appellate courts review the classification of property under a manifest weight standard. Appellate courts review the valuation date of an asset under an abuse of discretion standard. | Willamowski | Shelby |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2403 |
|
State v. Hill
| 16-23-07; 16-23-08; 16-23-09 | POST-SENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA; CRIM.R. 32.1 RES JUDICATA; KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY PLEA; CRIM.R. 11; JUDICIAL RELEASE; REAGAN TOKES LAW. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's post-sentence motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. | Zimmerman | Wyandot |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2402 |
|
State v. Davis
| 9-23-50 | Sufficiency; Manifest Weight; Jury Instructions; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Evidence supported conviction for receiving stolen property. Jury instruction regarding knowingly was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. | Waldick | Marion |
6/24/2024
|
6/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2400 |
|
State v. Lambert
| 9-23-76 | FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because his sentence is within the sentencing range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Marion |
6/17/2024
|
6/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2308 |
|
State v. Crumpler
| 3-23-10 | Manifest Weight; Deadly Weapon; Firearm. The judgment of the trial court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when he was found to have attempted to cause physical harm with a deadly weapon when the defendant repeatedly struck the victim in the head with the butt of a firearm. Item's status as a "firearm" can be proven by the circumstantial evidence despite the fact that the item was not recovered. | Willamowski | Crawford |
6/17/2024
|
6/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2309 |
|
State v. Williams
| 13-23-32 | Sufficiency of the evidence; Manifest weight of the evidence; Importuning; R.C. 2907.07(D)(2); Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor; R.C. 2923.02; R.C. 2907.04(A); Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles; R.C. 2907.31(A)(1); Possessing Criminal Tools; R.C. 2923.24(A). The four convictions of the defendant-appellant were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Waldick | Seneca |
6/17/2024
|
6/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2307 |
|
State v. Thoman
| 3-23-43 | Manifest Weight, Community Control Violation. Trial court's judgment finding that that defendant violated the terms of his community control is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Willamowski | Crawford |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2219 |
|
State v. Heffley
| 1-23-66 | 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) empowers state to remove a federal firearms disability | Gwin | Allen |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2218 |
|
State v. Saunders
| 9-23-58 | R.C. 2945.482; Confrontation Clause; R.C. 5123.01; Developmental Disability. Defendant-appellant's right to confrontation was not violated during the trial, when the victim testified by closed-circuit television from a different room than where defendant-appellant and the jury were present. The testifying victim qualified as a developmentally-disabled person, pursuant to R.C. 2123.031, and the requirements of R.C. 2945.482(D) were met. | Miller | Marion |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2224 |
|
In re R.W.
| 9-23-45 | Juvenile court; Dependency proceeding; R.C. 2151.04; Clear and convincing evidence. The trial court did not err by determining that the child was an abused and dependent child. | Miller | Marion |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2223 |
|
State v. Smead
| 8-23-23 | Speeding; R.C. 4511.21(D). Trial court properly found appellant guilty of speeding. | Waldick | Logan |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2222 |
|
State v. Smith
| 4-23-05 | Allied Offenses of Similar Import; Merger; Aggravated Robbery; Felonious Assault; Sufficiency of the Evidence; Manifest Weight. Defendant-appellant's aggravated robbery and felonious assault charges are not allied offenses of similar import because they were committed with different animus. Defendant-appellant's aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and firearm specification convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Defiance |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2221 |
|
Auck v. Stump
| 3-23-45 | Civ.R. 56(A); Civ.R. 60(B). Where trial court granted summary judgment on a Civ.R. 60(B) claim without any analysis other than referring to Appellee's motion, we are unable to conduct meaningful review. | Waldick | Crawford |
6/10/2024
|
6/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2220 |
|
State v. Eller
| 5-23-46; 5-23-47 | Trial court erred by imposing time served to one sentence only when the sentences were concurrent. | Willamowski | Hancock |
6/3/2024
|
6/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2121 |
|
State v. Hall
| 1-23-32 | Manifest Weight; Sufficiency of the Evidence | Gwin | Allen |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2029 |
|
State v. Bocook
| 3-23-41 | KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY PLEA; CRIM.R. 11; POST-RELEASE CONTROL; SENTENCING. The defendant-appellant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because the trial court properly notified the defendant-appellant of post-release control at the combined change-of-plea and sentencing hearing. | Zimmerman | Crawford |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2030 |
|
State v. Cowan
| 1-23-20 | Weight; Prosecutorial Misconduct; Juror Misconduct | Gwin | Allen |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2028 |
|
In re Adoption of S.T.B.
| 9-23-60 | Consent to adoption; R.C. 3107.05; Justifiable cause for lack of contact with child; Manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's judgment finding the biological mother's consent was required for the adoption of her child was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Waldick | Marion |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2031 |
|
State v. Burse
| 1-23-13 & 1-23-14 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; TRAFFICKING IN HEROIN; BULK AMOUNT; REAGAN TOKES. The defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-heroin conviction is based on sufficient evidence. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law based on the authority endorsing Ohio’s Reagan Tokes Law. | Zimmerman | Allen |
5/28/2024
|
5/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2027 |
|
State v. Call
| 9-23-75 | FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because her sentence is within the sentencing range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Marion |
5/20/2024
|
5/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1944 |
|
State v. Addiego
| 7-23-09 | STATE’S APPEAL; INDICTMENT DISMISSAL; DISCOVERY VIOLATION; CRIM.R. 16. The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment in this case. | Zimmerman | Henry |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1849 |
|
In re A.G.
| 5-23-29 | Permanent Custody; Hearsay; Reasonable Efforts. Permanent custody finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Waldick | Hancock |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1846 |
|
Hough v. Plaza St. Fund 64, L.L.C.
| 5-23-45 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE; ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES; SLIP AND FALL. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees because there is no genuine issue of material fact that the defendants-appellees owed a duty to the plaintiffs-appellants. The trench was an open and obvious hazard and there are no attendant circumstances which would warrant an exception to the open and obvious doctrine. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1847 |
|
Debold v. Siesel Distrib., L.L.C.
| 13-23-26 | Summary Judgment; Recreational Activity; Primary Assumption of the Risk; Negligence; Negligent Entrustment, Loss of Filial Consortium. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on negligence claim resulting from accident where tube being pulled by a snowmobile struck an object. Driver was a 10 year old minor, so cannot be negligent. Additionally, as it was a recreational activity, the injured 12-year-old assumed the risk of the crash. No evidence was presented that the driver behaved recklessly. Negligent entrustment claim fails because there was no underlying liability. Claim for loss of filial consortium is a derivative claim that fails because there could be no liability on the underlying claims. | Willamowski | Seneca |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1851 |
|
State v. Rose
| 1-23-02 | Batson Claim. Defendant-appellant's counsel's failure to respond to the government's race-neutral explanation for exercising its preemptory strike indicated he no longer disputed the strike. Even assuming defendant-appellant still disputed the strike, the trial court's ruling was not clearly erroneous; the record does not support finding that the State was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. | Miller | Allen |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1845 |
|
State v. Gunther
| 7-23-08 | STATE’S APPEAL; INDICTMENT DISMISSAL; DISCOVERY VIOLATION; CRIM.R. 16. The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment in this case. | Zimmerman | Henry |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1848 |
|
State v. Hill
| 7-23-17 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; Appellate Review. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence because it would find that the considerations contained in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 weigh against the sentence imposed by the trial court that is within the statutorily authorized range. | Willamowski | Henry |
5/13/2024
|
5/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1850 |
|
State v. Cerrato
| 7-23-14 | SENTENCING; R.C. 2929.144; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT; R.C. 2941.25. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not authorized by law and is contrary to law because the trial court incorrectly calculated the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment. The defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for stipulating that her involuntary-manslaughter and felonious-assault convictions are not allied offenses of similar import. | Zimmerman | Henry |
5/6/2024
|
5/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1735 |
|
State v. Moore
| 9-23-25 | Double Jeopardy; Motion to Dismiss; Venue; Motion for Acquittal; Crim.R. 29. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that state and federal double jeopardy protections are coextensive. A judicial determination that venue is improper, even if styled as a "motion for acquittal," does not determine the culpability of the defendant; does not trigger constitutional double-jeopardy protections; and does not bar a retrial of the relevant charges in a proper venue. | Willamowski | Marion |
5/6/2024
|
5/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1736 |
|
State v. Bender
| 14-23-12 | SUFFICIENCY; MANIFEST WEIGHT; FELONIOUS ASSAULT; SELF DEFENSE; MISTRIAL; 5TH AMENDMENT; JURY INSTRUCTIONS; INFERIOR-DEGREE-OFFENSE INSTRUCTION; STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAW; VERDICT FORMS; SENTENCING; REAGAN TOKES LAW. The defendant-appellant’s felonious-assault conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the trier of fact did not lose its way including that the defendant-appellant did not act in self-defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant-appellant’s motions for a mistrial because the prosecutor did not improperly address the defendant-appellant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or his pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence. The trial court did not abuse in instructing the jury. | Zimmerman | Union |
5/6/2024
|
5/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1750 |
|
GROB Sys., Inc. v. McDermott
| 5-23-44 | Bench Trial; Manifest Weight; Contract; Breach; Damages. Trial court's determination to prorate damages for breach of contract was supported by the evidence. | Waldick | Hancock |
5/6/2024
|
5/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1734 |
|
State v. Rawlins
| 1-22-77 | JOINDER; SEVERANCE; CRIM.R. 8, 12, 13, 14; EVID.R. 404(B); MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; RAPE; RAPE SHIELD LAW. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by joining cases involving similar offenses, occurring separately, and with different victims because evidence of each offense would have been admissible at separate trials under Evid.R. 404(B). The defendant-appellant’s rape conviction under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the victim’s testimony regarding her prior sexual activity with the defendant-appellant. | Zimmerman | Allen |
5/6/2024
|
5/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1733 |
|
State v. Barnes
| 14-23-33 | R.C. 2945.71; R.C. 2963.30; Speedy trial; Interstate Agreement on Detainers; Effect of guilty plea on right to raise speedy trial claim on appeal. The judgment of conviction and sentence entered in the trial court is affirmed as the defendant-appellant's guilty plea waived the right to raise a statutory speedy trial claim on appeal. | Waldick | Union |
5/6/2024
|
5/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1737 |
|
State v. O'Day
| 15-22-08 | Motion to Suppress Evidence; Failure to Comply; Crim.R. 29; Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion. Defendant-appellant's conviction for failure to comply with order or signal of a police officer is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Van Wert |
4/29/2024
|
4/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1654 |
|
State v. Criswell
| 9-23-72 | Sentencing; Consecutive Sentences. Sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) was not implicated where multiple prison terms were not being imposed. | Waldick | Marion |
4/29/2024
|
4/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1628 |
|
In re Adoption of G.O.D.
| 4-23-11 | Adoption; Consent to adoption; Service of notice; Service by publication. The trial court did not err in finding that the consent of the biological father was not required for the adoption of his son as the father failed to timely object to the adoption after being served notice by publication. | Waldick | Defiance |
4/29/2024
|
4/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1627 |
|
Marysville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 14-23-31 & 14-23-32 | Property tax appeals; R.C. 5717.01; R.C. 2506.01; Right of school board to appeal to Board of Tax Appeals. The trial court did not err in dismissing the board of revision appeals filed by the school board in the Court of Common Pleas, when appeals had already permissibly been filed with the Board of Tax of Appeals. | Waldick | Union |
4/29/2024
|
4/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1629 |
|
State v. Carroll
| 3-23-30 | Constructive Possession; Knowingly; R.C. 2925.11(A). Mere proximity to drugs is not sufficient to establish that a defendant was in constructive possession of the contraband. However, proximity can be used to establish constructive possession in conjunction with other facts that suggest the defendant had dominion or control over the contraband. | Willamowski | Crawford |
4/29/2024
|
4/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1626 |
|
State v. Daniels
| 3-23-25 | Sufficient Evidence; Manifest Weight; Possession of a Fentanyl-Related Compound; Tampering with Evidence. Possession can be established through circumstantial evidence. Direct and circumstantial evidence have the same probative value. A sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis examines whether the State has carried its burden of production. A manifest-weight analysis examines whether the State has carried its burden of persuasion. | Willamowski | Crawford |
4/22/2024
|
4/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1536 |
|
Vance v. Vance
| 13-23-07 | Magistrates; Civ.R. 53; R.C. 3105.171; Division of Marital Property; R.C. 3105.18; Spousal Support; R.C. 3109.051; Parenting Time. The trial court did not commit reversible error when the magistrate presided over the evidentiary hearing, the magistrate did not issue a magistrate’s decision, and the magistrate was elected judge of the common pleas court and then issued the judgment. The trial court’s decisions concerning spousal support and the division of property in the parties’ divorce were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee-husband parenting time with his minor children. | Miller | Seneca |
4/22/2024
|
4/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1533 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 9-23-65 | Evid.R. 901; Authentication; 6th Amendment; Confrontation Clause; Testimonial Statements; Hearsay; Evid.R. 804(B)(6); Forfeiture by Wrong Doing; Stipulation as to Prior Conviction; Cumulative Error; R.C. 2945.75; Verdict Forms. The judgment of conviction and sentence entered in the trial court is reversed in part, due to the verdict forms failing to set forth the aggravating elements of two crimes charged. The trial court's judgment is affirmed in all other respects. | Waldick | Marion |
4/22/2024
|
4/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1534 |
|
Schultete v. Steinke
| 1-23-52 | Summary Judgment, Dram Shop Act, Discovery, Motion to Compel, Stacking Inferences. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment when the only facts supporting the appellant's case required the stacking of inferences. Trial court did not err in not giving additional time to complete discovery and respond to the summary judgment motion when the trial court did not rule on the motion for over a year and no request for extension was filed. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to compel a forensic inspection of cell phones. | Willamowski | Allen |
4/22/2024
|
4/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1538 |
|
Platt v. Orick
| 2-23-11 | Custody; Parental Unfitness; Jurisdiction. Trial court had jurisdiction to determine custody matter. Findings were supported by the evidence, and criminal statute was not relevant or applicable in these proceedings. | Waldick | Auglaize |
4/22/2024
|
4/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1537 |
|
Heberling v. Deckard
| 6-23-10 | Magistrates; Civ.R. 53; Nonparent Custody; R.C. 2151.23(A); Evid.R. 702(B); Juv.R. 34(B)(2). The trial court did not commit reversible error when the magistrate presided over the evidentiary hearing, the magistrate did not issue a magistrate’s decision, and the magistrate was elected judge of the common pleas court and then issued the judgment. The trial court did not err in concluding defendant-appellant father was unsuitable to be designated as the residential parent and legal custody of his son. | Miller | Hardin |
4/22/2024
|
4/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1535 |
|
State v. Barton
| 13-23-22 | Endangering Children; Grand Jury; Fifth Amendment; Bill of Particulars. Conviction for Endangering Children supported by the evidence. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for mistrial based on Fifth Amendment issues. | Waldick | Seneca |
4/15/2024
|
4/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1417 |
|
Smith v. Honda
| 8-23-17 | Civ.R. 49. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding jury interrogatories redundant. | Waldick | Logan |
4/15/2024
|
4/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1418 |
|
Smith v. Perkins
| 5-23-18 | DEFAULT JUDGMENT; CIV.R. 55; COMPENSATORY DAMAGES; PUNITIVE DAMAGES; CIV.R. 36; REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS; MOTION TO STRIKE; MOTION IN LIMINE. Because the grounds for granting a Civ.R. 36(B) motion were satisfied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding with a hearing on the issue of damages. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting a default judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellant and awarding him $250.00 in compensatory damages. The trial court’s damages award is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
4/15/2024
|
4/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1419 |
|