|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Thomas
| 1-24-29 | Evid.R. 404(B); Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts; Aggravated Funding of Drug Trafficking; R.C. 2925.05(A). Text messages did not constitute evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act and, therefore, fell outside the scope of Evid.R. 404(B), so the trial court did not deny defendant-appellant a fair trial by not barring admission of the text messages based on Evid.R. 404(B). There was insufficient evidence to sustain defendant-appellant's conviction for aggravated funding of drug trafficking and, therefore, that conviction must be vacated. | Miller | Allen |
4/14/2025
|
4/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1321 |
|
State v. Stephens
| 5-24-31 | Felony sentencing review; R.C. 2953.08; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. The prison sentence imposed by the trial court was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Hancock |
4/14/2025
|
4/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1322 |
|
State v. Parsons
| 9-24-16 | Sexual Battery; R.C. 2907.03(A)(5); Fines; R.C. 2953.08(G). Defendant-appellant's conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's imposition of a $10,000 fine, in addition to a prison term, did not violate defendant-appellant's constitutional rights. | Miller | Marion |
4/14/2025
|
4/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1324 |
|
Adams v. DiSabato
| 14-23-45 | CIV.R. 42(B); EVID.R. 408; ABUSE OF PROCESS; CIV.R. 59(A); HARMLESS ERROR; CIV.R. 61; DEFAMATION; R.C. 2311.21; CIVIL CONSPIRACY; PLAIN ERROR. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff-appellant’s request to bifurcate the claims and conduct separate trials. The trial court properly considered the convenience of the parties, judicial economy, and the need to preserve the defendant-appellee’s right to a jury trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting an amended operating agreement. The document was relevant to address the issue of the defendant-appellee’s ownership interest in the company. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a letter from counsel of the plaintiff-appellant regarding settlement negotiations because the letter was not offered for the purpose of establishing liability or the value of any claim discussed therein. The letter was offered for another purpose, i.e., to show the plaintiff-appellant’s abuse of process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff-appellant’s motion for a new trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence related to the plaintiff-appellant’s reputation before and after publication of the alleged defamatory statements. Even if the trial court did abuse its discretion by admitting such evidence, any error is harmless since the plaintiff-appellant failed to demonstrate the admission affected his material rights. The plaintiff-appellant’s potential claims for defamation against deceased appellee abated by his death and any claim for civil conspiracy also fails since the plaintiff-appellant did not prevail at trial. The plaintiff-appellant waived all but plain error since he did not object to the trial court’s instruction on punitive damages and attorney fees, nor did he object to the corresponding verdict form. The trial court did not err by determining the amount of attorney fees to be paid by plaintiff-appellant. | Zimmerman | Union |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1219 |
|
In re K.F.
| 5-24-29 | SERIOUS YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; BLENDED SENTENCE; DELINQUENCY ADMISSION; JUV.R. 29; R.C. 2152.13(D)(3); ADULT PORTION OF SERIOUS YOUTHFUL OFFENDER’S SENTENCE; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); CONSECUTIVE INDEFINITE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.144. The adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s delinquency admissions were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because, based on the totality of the circumstances, the juvenile court substantially complied with the requirements of Juv.R. 29(D)(2). The juvenile court erred by imposing consecutive sentences because it did not make any of the three statutorily required findings before imposing consecutive sentences, either at the sentencing hearing or within the sentencing entry. The adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s sentence is also contrary to law because the trial court imposed consecutive indefinite sentences in contravention of R.C. 2929.144. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1216 |
|
State v. Carter
| 5-24-35 | Sentencing; Contrary to Law; Information at Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08. At sentencing, a trial court is to examine the character and history of the defendant. The information presented to a trial court at sentencing need not be limited to evidence that relates to the offenses that yielded convictions. A trial court may consider pending charges as these are required to be included in the presentence investigation report. | Willamowski | Hancock |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1217 |
|
State v. Risner
| 6-24-08, 6-24-09 | R.C. 2941.51(D); Court-Appointed-Counsel Fees; Civil Assessment; Future Ability to Pay; Abuse of Discretion; State v. Taylor, 2020-Ohio-6786. A trial court may not order a defendant to pay court-appointed-counsel fees as a part of his or her sentence. Rather, a trial court may issue a civil assessment for court-appointed-counsel fees. A trial court may, pursuant to R.C. 2941.51(D), assess some or all of the court-appointed-counsel fees incurred during a defendant's representation. A trial court may assess court-appointed-counsel fees if the defendant is found to have a present or future ability to pay these costs. Appellate courts review the imposition of court-appointed-counsel fees as a civil assessment under an abuse of discretion standard. | Willamowski | Hardin |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1218 |
|
State v. McLaurin
| 1-24-28 | INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; R.C. 2901.05; R.C. 2901.09; SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM; CASTLE DOCTRINE. In the absence of any evidence of an unlawful entry on the part of the victim, the defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the castle doctrine. | Zimmerman | Allen |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1213 |
|
State v. Storer
| 2-24-07; 2-24-08 | Consecutive Sentences, R.C. 2929.11, R.C. 2929.12, R.C. 2929.14. Trial court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and also the required statutory factors. Appellate courts lack the authority to review the conclusions the trial court reaches. Record supported trial court's findings regarding consecutive sentences. | Willamowski | Auglaize |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1214 |
|
In re Estate of Francis
| 5-24-25 | Attorney Fees, Probate Estate, Non-probate Assets. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in following the local rule that prohibits consideration of non-probate assets when determining the appropriate attorney fees for a probate estate. | Willamowski | Hancock |
4/4/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1215 |
|
State v. Smith
| 7-24-05 | Mootness of Appeal. This appeal is moot because defendant-appellant voluntarily completed the jail term without seeking a stay from the trial court, the jail term was imposed for a non-felony offense, and there was no evidence from which an inference could be drawn that defendant-appellant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights because of the challenged judgment apart from the already-served sentence. | Miller | Henry |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1145 |
|
State v. Walker
| 2-24-5 | SPEEDY-TRIAL STATUTE; R.C. 2945.71; TOLLING EVENT; R.C. 2945.72(D). The defendant-appellant’s speedy-trial rights were not violated because, as of the change-of-plea hearing, a total of 260 days ran against the State. The defendant-appellant’s conduct in leaving the State of Ohio and/or hiding his location from the State, while knowing of an impending felony charge and related misdemeanor charge, constitutes a delay occasioned by neglect or improper act as contemplated by R.C. 2945.72(D). | Zimmerman | Auglaize |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1143 |
|
State v. Matthews
| 3-24-18 | Judicial Release; Abuse of Discretion. On appeal, a trial court's decision to revoke judicial release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is a decision that arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. | Willamowski | Crawford |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1144 |
|
In re J.L.
| 1-24-23, 1-24-24, 1-24-25, 1-24-26, 1-24-27 | PERMANENT CUSTODY; REASONABLE EFFORTS; R.C. 2151.419(A)(2)(e); LEGAL CUSTODY. The trial court did not err by awarding permanent custody of Jas.M. and Jax.M. to the agency because the agency was not required to demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to reunify the family since mother-appellant had her parental rights involuntarily terminated as provide for in R.C. 2415.419(A)(2)(e). It was not plain error for the trial court o grant legal custody of S.L., J.L., and N.L. to legal custodians. | Zimmerman | Allen |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1142 |
|
State v. Houtz
| 6-24-05, 6-24-06 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; Crim.R. 11; Substitution of Counsel. Defendant-appellant's prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Defendant-appellant did not demonstrate that his plea was anything other than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's request for new counsel. | Miller | Hardin |
3/24/2025
|
3/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1008 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 9-23-82 | Speedy Trial; R.C. 2945.71; R.C. 2945.72; R.C. 2945.73; Indictment; Crim.R. 7(D); Motion to Amend Indictment; Trafficking in Cocaine; Trafficking in Heroin; Trafficking in a Fentanyl-Related Compound; Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight; Merger. Defendant-appellant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. The trial court did not err by granting the plaintiff-appellee’s motion to amend the indictment. Defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-drugs convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by failing to merge defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-cocaine, trafficking-in-heroin, and trafficking-in-a-fentanyl-related-compound offenses for sentencing. | Miller | Marion |
3/24/2025
|
3/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1009 |
|
State v. Bigler
| 9-24-29 | Maximum Sentences, Consideration of Sentencing Factors. Trial court did not err in sentencing defendant to a maximum sentence. Defendant challenges the conclusions reached when the trial court considered the statutory sentencing factors. Such consideration is not subject to appellate review pursuant to State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729. | Willamowski | Marion |
3/17/2025
|
3/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-887 |
|
State v. Webb
| 8-24-30 | CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings necessary to impose a consecutive sentence and the record supports the trial court’s findings. | Zimmerman | Logan |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-793 |
|
State v. Mohler
| 8-24-35 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant's prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Miller | Logan |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-792 |
|
Norman v. Branco
| 13-24-24 | EXPIRED CIVIL STALKING PROTECTION ORDER; COLLATERAL-CONSEQUENCES EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE. Appeal dismissed as moot since the civil stalking protection order expired by its terms. The collateral-consequences exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply since the respondent-appellant failed to demonstrate that he has suffered any legal collateral consequences arising from the expired order. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-791 |
|
State v. Caudill
| 17-24-08 & 17-24-09 | Obstructing Justice; R.C. 2921.32(A)(1); Assault on a Police Officer; R.C. 2903.13(C)(5)(a); Resisting Arrest; R.C. 2921.33(A); Prosecutorial Misconduct. Defendant-appellant's convictions for obstructing justice, assault on a police officer, and resisting arrest were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Even assuming the prosecutor's comments during opening statements and closing arguments were inappropriate, the trial court did not commit plain error in allowing them. | Miller | Shelby |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-787 |
|
Bradshaw v. N. Union
| 14-24-37 | Summary Judgment; Open and Obvious; Attendant Circumstances. Trial court properly granted summary judgment where extended step was open and obvious. | Waldick | Union |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-788 |
|
State v. Loomis
| 14-24-33 | Consecutive Sentence; Required Findings. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences when it made the necessary findings which were supported by the record. | Willamowski | Union |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-789 |
|
State v. Waltz
| 14-24-32 | Sentencing; Guilty Plea; Admission of Guilt; Contrary to Law. A guilty plea constitutes a complete admission of guilt. In entering a guilty plea, the defendant waives the right to have the State produce evidence that proves the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the defendant may not generally raise sufficiency or manifest-weight challenges on appeal. The degree of the theft offense is determined by the value of the property stolen and not the amount of the economic loss sustained by the victim. | Willamowski | Union |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-790 |
|
Petersen v. Nonnenman
| 7-24-09 | Divorce; Division of marital assets and debt; Spousal support. The trial court did not err in the division of debts and assets ordered in the parties' divorce, nor did the trial court err in denying wife's request for spousal support. | Waldick | Henry |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-794 |
|
Link v. Kelly
| 8-24-16 | Contracts; Specific performance; Settlement agreements; Authority of attorney to settle litigation; Summary judgment. The judgment of the trial court is reversed as the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff-appellant's motion for summary judgment. | Waldick | Logan |
3/3/2025
|
3/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-711 |
|
State v. Moore
| 9-23-83 | Rape; R.C. 2907.02(A)(2); Gross Sexual Imposition; R.C. 2907.05(A)(1); Force or Threat of Force; Hearsay; Evid.R. 803(8)(b); Evid.R. 805; Evid.R. 701; Evid.R. 404(B); Other Acts Evidence; Merger; Evid.R. 106; Rule of Completeness; Harmless Error. Defendant-appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not violate defendant-appellant's right to confrontation when it sustained objections during cross-examination. The trial court did not err in allowing purported undisclosed expert testimony because such testimony was not expert testimony. The trial court did not err in allowing purported other-acts evidence without the State providing notice pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B)(2). The trial court did not err in declining to merge the rape and gross sexual imposition offenses. The trial court did not err when the State showed the jury certain portions of defendant-appellant’s videotaped police interview and did not require the State to play the entire video. | Miller | Marion |
3/3/2025
|
3/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-712 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 9-24-04 | Possession of drugs; Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight; Venue; Knowledge; Constructive Possession; Prior Inconsistent Statement; Evid.R. 613. Defendant-appellant's possession-of-cocaine conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit reversible error by attempting to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. | Miller | Marion |
3/3/2025
|
3/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-713 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 9-23-65 | R.C. 2945.75; Verdict forms; Plain error. The verdict forms that did not comply with the requirements of R.C. 2945.75 did not amount to plain error in this case. | Waldick | Marion |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-603 |
|
State v. Matthews
| 8-24-37 | Consecutive Sentences; Findings; R.C. 2929.14(C). Before imposing prison terms consecutively, a trial court must make several required findings that are stated in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). On review, the appellate court is to apply a deferential standard and may not merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. | Willamowski | Logan |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-602 |
|
In re B.R.
| 3-24-23; 3-24-24; 3-24-25 | PERMANENT CUSTODY; POST-TRIAL SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE; PLAIN ERROR. The trial court’s admission of a supplemental report by the agency constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion and constitutes plain error because it denied mother-appellant of a fair hearing and it erodes the public trust in the integrity of the judicial process. | Zimmerman | Crawford |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-599 |
|
State v. Taylor
| 5-24-27; 5-24-28 | BENCH TRIAL; ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; AGGRAVATED POSSESSION OF DRUGS; FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting State’s Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 as evidence of his possession of contraband even though the exhibits also included items that were not subjected to testing for contraband. The defendant-appellant’s aggravated possession of drugs convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The 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 | Hancock |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-600 |
|
In re M.P.
| 5-24-32, 5-24-33, 5-24-34 | Legal Custody; Reasonable Efforts. Trial court's determination awarding legal custody to relatives is supported by the evidence. | Waldick | Hancock |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-601 |
|
In re J.L.
| 4-24-20 | Permanent Custody; Reasonable Efforts. Award of permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence. | Waldick | Defiance |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-426 |
|
State v. Cioffi
| 8-24-36 | Merger; R.C. 2941.25; Evidence of Other Crime, Wrong, or Act; Evid.R. 404. The trial court erred when it failed to merge certain domestic violence and felonious assault offenses as allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25. The trial court did not err in allowing the State to present evidence of certain prior conduct by defendant-appellant. | Miller | Logan |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-423 |
|
State v. Whitt
| 8-24-31 | Sufficient Evidence; Manifest Weight; Aggravated Possession of Drugs; Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer; Tampering with Evidence. A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge argues that the State did not carry its burden of production at trial. A manifest-weight challenge argues that the State did not carry its burden of persuasion at trial. A jury could find that the defendant knew that an official investigation was likely or about to be instituted where the defendant began making sudden movements as soon as a police officer activated his lights to effectuate a traffic stop before he (the defendant) sped away from the police cruiser. | Willamowski | Logan |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-424 |
|
Lyon Revocable Trust v. Berry
| 8-24-07 | CIV.R. 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS; ENFORCEABILITY OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; CONTRACT INTERPRETATION; DEFENSIVE CROSS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR; R.C. 2505.22. The trial court erred by considering additional evidence beyond the evidence contained in the amended complaint without converting the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and providing the nonmoving party a sufficient opportunity to respond. The trial court erred by dismissing the conversion claim because the magistrate’s order did not render the claim moot or otherwise resolve the claim. | Zimmerman | Logan |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-425 |
|
Schmidt v. Patriot Concrete, L.L.C.
| 1-25-15 | MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; CIV.R. 60(B); ABUSE OF DISCRETION. The trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to set aside default judgment without holding an evidentiary. Defendant-appellant’s motion and supporting affidavits contain allegations of operative facts that would warrant relief under CiV.R. 60(B) such that the trial court should have held a hearing to verify these facts before ruling on the motion. | Zimmerman | Allen |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-428 |
|
State v. Jefferson
| 1-23-69 | Self defense; Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest weight; Allied Offenses of Similar Import; Merger. Defendant-appellant’s felonious assault conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant’s kidnapping conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant’s felonious assault and kidnapping convictions are not allied offenses of similar import because they were committed with a separate animus. | Miller | Allen |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-429 |
|
State v. Harvey
| 1-23-37 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. The defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-heroin and engaging-in-a-pattern-of-corrupt-activity convictions are based on sufficient. | Zimmerman | Allen |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-430 |
|
State v. Carnes
| 3-24-06 | Evid.R. 404; Ineffective Assistance; Cumulative Error. Trial court did not err by admitting evidence; defendant did not establish any prejudicial error, let alone cumulative error. | Waldick | Crawford |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-427 |
|
State v. Martin
| 9-24-23 | Crim.R. 33; Motion for a new trial; Juror misconduct. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant-appellant's motion for a new trial on the basis of alleged juror misconduct. | Waldick | Marion |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-420 |
|
State v. Davis
| 9-24-13 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G), there is no basis to vacate or modify defendant-appellant's sentence. An appellate court may not independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s judgment concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. | Miller | Marion |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-421 |
|
State v. Hood
| 9-24-08 | SUPPRESSION; TRAFFIC STOP; REASONABLE SUSPICION; PROBABLE CAUSE; WINDSHIELD DAMAGE; R.C. 4513.02; MOTION TO DISMISS; GRAND JURY; INDICTMENT; PLAIN ERROR; HEARSAY; R.C. 2925.51(A); CONFRONTATION CLAUSE; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant’s motion to suppress evidence because there was competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that the law enforcement officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant-appellant based on a violation of R.C. 4513.02. The defendant-appellant’s argument that the indictment was defective because there was insufficient evidence presented to the grand jury is not subject to judicial review since it does not present a fundamental error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a laboratory report because it was properly authenticated. | Zimmerman | Marion |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-422 |
|
Hasbrook v. Hasbrook
| 15-24-08 | Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order, Bias of the Magistrate, Pro Se Representation, Weight of the Evidence. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for domestic violence CPO when the evidence failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that any domestic violence or threat of domestic violence had occurred. The record does not demonstrate a bias against petitioner. The trial court did not deny appellant his due process rights by not instructing the pro se petitioner how to proceed with his case. | Willamowski | Van Wert |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-418 |
|
Texas Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez
| 16-24-09 | Declaratory judgment; Summary judgment; Insurance coverage; Construction of insurance policy language; Principal and agent; Apparent authority; Attorneys' fees; Negligence of insurance agent; No genuine issue of material fact. The various aspects of the trial court's judgment are affirmed. | Waldick | Wyandot |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-417 |
|
State v. Scott
| 13-24-10 | Opinion Testimony; Prior Bad Acts; Abuse of Discretion. The decision to admit or exclude evidence is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. The Confrontation Clause is not implicated when the declarant of the challenged out-of-court statement testifies at trial and is cross-examined. A police officer does not improperly engage in witness vouching by noting that the statements of witnesses are consistent. Since an "act" is done or performed, a defendant's prior statements or comments will not generally constitute a prior bad act. A lay witness can testify as to the rate of speed that a vehicle was traveling based on his or her own personal observations. | Willamowski | Seneca |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-419 |
|
Fox v. Fetro
| 13-24-16 | Civ.R. 54; Presumption of regularity. Judgment reversed due to concerns regarding the completeness and propriety of the judgment entry. | Miller | Seneca |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-331 |
|
State v. Shockey
| 9-23-22 | Verdict Forms; Remand; R.C. 2945.75(A)(2). Applying the Supreme Court of Ohio's holding in State v. Mays, appellant was unable to demonstrate plain error here regarding verdict forms. | Waldick | Marion |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-328 |
|
State v. Bertuzzi
| 9-24-12 | Motion to Withdraw a Plea; Merger; Aggravated Robbery; Burglary; R.C. 2941.25; Allied Offenses. Appellate courts review a trial court's decision to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse of discretion standard. A mere change of heart does not provide a defendant with a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw his or her plea. A defendant can commit the offense of burglary by trespassing an occupied structure by force with an intent to commit a criminal offense. To perpetrate the offense of burglary, the defendant need not succeed at committing the intended offense after impermissibly trespassing into an occupied structure. Thus, an offense committed once inside the occupied structure is distinct from crime of burglary and is not subject to merger. | Willamowski | Marion |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-329 |
|