02/08/2024
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Ja.B. | 113056 | Permanent custody; legal custody; extension of temporary custody. Judgment affirmed. The weight of the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that (1) the children cannot be placed with either of their parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either of their parents; (2) reasonable efforts were made to prevent the children’s removal and for reunification; and (3) permanent custody to the agency would be in the children’s best interest. In consideration of all the best interest factors, along with the GAL’s opinion that permanent custody to the agency would be in the children’s best interest, a preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s denial of alleged Father’s request for legal custody to one of two paternal aunts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by not extending the temporary custody order. The children were approximately 16 months old at the time of trial and Mother and alleged Father had not made significant progress on their case plans. The children had been with their foster family since birth and were bonded to them and doing well. The record demonstrates that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. | Ryan | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-453 |
| In re I.L.J. | 112946 | Guardian ad litem; fees; motion for fees; Loc.Juv.R. 15(D)(5). Judgment reversed and remanded. The trial court erred in prematurely granting the guardian ad litem’s motion for fees without a hearing before 14 days elapsed pursuant to Loc.Juv.R. 15(D)(5). | Celebrezze | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-454 |
| State v. Robinson | 112853 | Gross sexual imposition; R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); sufficiency of evidence; touching bottom. Where the alleged victim repeatedly and unequivocally testified at trial that defendant never touched her “butt” or “bottom” when he ran his hand up her leg and no other witness observed the touching, there was insufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction for gross sexual imposition based on his touching the alleged victim’s “bottom” as charged. | Gallagher | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-455 |
| State v. Shahin | 112829 | Court’s dismissal of case with prejudice; lack of statutory or constitutional violation that would bar further prosecution; plain error; prosecutorial vindictiveness; ripeness. Judgment reversed. The trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the state’s case was plain error because there was no statutory or constitutional violation that would bar further prosecution. The defendant’s claim of vindictive prosecution was not ripe because, at the time of the dismissal, no new charges had been filed. | Ryan | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-456 |
| State v. Loveless | 112809 | Reagan Tokes Law; constitutionality. The Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional, and appellant was properly sentenced thereunder. The decision of the trial court is affirmed. | Celebrezze | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-457 |
| State v. Cobb | 112785 | Trafficking; possession; R.C. 2925.03(A)(2); R.C. 2925.11(A); drugs; manifest weight; chain of custody; reliable; sufficiency; complicity; jury instruction; allied offenses; R.C. 2941.25. Appellant’s convictions for trafficking and drug possession were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The testimony effectively established a proper chain of custody and the reliability of the testing process and results. Circumstantial evidence established appellant not only possessed the drugs but trafficked them and was complicit with his codefendant. The trial court did not err in providing a jury instruction on complicity. The trial court committed plain error in failing to merge appellant’s convictions for trafficking and drug possession as to the same drug as allied offenses of similar import pursuant to R.C. 2941.25. | S. Gallagher | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-458 |
| State v. Whittaker | 112780 | Improperly furnishing firearm to a minor; R.C. 2923.21(A)(3); sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s conviction for improperly furnishing a handgun to a minor was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Evidence at trial established that appellant told police officers that she had given her handgun to her 18-year-old son to protect himself because the area was dangerous and he was being bullied. While appellant and her son testified that she had not given him the firearm and that he had retrieved it from her safe, the factfinder was in the best position to determine the witnesses' credibility. Judgment affirmed. | Forbes | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-459 |
| Woods v. Flemings | 112749 | Bench trial; eviction; damages; motion for sanctions; untimely filing of trial brief; abuse of discretion; continuance; inherent authority to manage proceedings; supervisory control of docket; manifest weight of the evidence; competent, credible evidence; bias; cumulative error. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for sanctions and continuing the trial. The trial court also did not err in declining to award appellant late fees, loss of rental income, back rent, water and sewer fees, and damages beyond those related to the window blinds and the flooring, or in its award of the remainder of the security deposit to appellee. The trial court’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, appellant has not demonstrated bias, and there was no cumulative error. | Celebrezze | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-460 |
| State v. Wilson | 111912 | App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) 90-day period to file timely application, untimely filed, failure to establish good cause for untimely filing of application. The applicant has filed an App.R. 26(B) application for reopening beyond the 90-day period for filing a timely application per App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). The applicant has failed to establish good cause for the untimely filing of the application for reopening. | Celebrezze | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-461 |
| State v. Lenhart | 74332 | App.R. 26(B); application for reopening; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; successive applications; untimely application; good cause. The successive, untimely application to reopen was denied where there is no right to successive applications under App.R. 26(B) and the application was untimely filed without a showing of good cause for the delay. | Forbes | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-462 |
| Costin v. Midwest Vision Partners, L.L.C. | 112651 | Modification; contract; arbitration, de novo; compel; stay; discovery; intent; unambiguous. In the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, the trial court did not err in denying the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings without an evidentiary hearing or a trial. | E.T. Gallagher | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-463 |
| State v. Boyce | 112610 | Confrontation clause; ongoing emergency; past event. Trial court’s admission of caller’s statements in 911 call did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements related to an ongoing emergency. | E.T. Gallagher | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-464 |
| State v. Singleton | 112588 | Felonious assault; manifest weight of the evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; cumulative error. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where witness testimony contained minor inconsistencies. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Cumulative error did not deprive appellant of a fair trial. | Kilbane | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-465 |
| Lake Cove Apts., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision | 112583 | Board of Tax Appeals; reduction; property value; personal property. - Appellants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by competent and probative evidence their right to decrease the value of real properties because of a transfer of personal property included in a prior sale. The BTA’s determination was neither unreasonable nor unlawful. | Keough | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-466 |
| State v. Woods | 112579, 112580 | Joinder; Crim.R. 8(A); photographs; authentication; Evid.R. 901(A); motion to suppress; voir dire; challenge for cause; impeachment; expert testimony; personal knowledge; Daubert; Evid.R. 702; Evid.R. 703; ballistics evidence; sufficiency; manifest weight; aggravated murder; murder; felonious assault; criminal damaging; carrying a concealed weapon; ineffective assistance of counsel; age as a sentencing factor. Trial court acted within its discretion in joining two cases arising from two separate incidents where the offenses were committed at different locations on different dates and were, therefore, simple and direct. Photographs from crime scene were properly authenticated by an officer who supervised the investigation. Motion to suppress was properly denied where there was no evidence that the search warrant affidavit contained untruthful statements. Denial of motion to excuse juror for cause due to anti-gun sentiments was not an abuse of discretion where the juror stated that she could keep an open mind, would hold the government to its burden of proof, and would listen to the evidence objectively. Trial court acted within its discretion in limiting the scope of cross-examination where defense counsel repeatedly asked objectionable questions and ultimately admitted at side bar that there was no evidence the witness had been reprimanded for dishonesty. Ballistics expert was qualified to testify regarding ballistics testing even though he did not perform the testing himself because he reviewed the examiner’s work and had personal knowledge of the testing. Trial court properly admitted ballistic evidence indicating that shell casings found at multiple crime scenes were discharged from the same gun where the methodology used for the ballistics testing had been accepted by multiple courts as meeting the standards outlined in Daubert for admission of scientific evidence. There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s felonious assault and criminal damaging convictions where surveillance video showed the defendant shooting at the victim in a parking lot where cars were damaged by bullets. There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s carrying a concealed weapon conviction where surveillance video showed the defendant walking around the store without the firearm visible but later use the gun to shoot at the victim. There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s aggravated murder, murder, and felonious assault convictions where surveillance video showed the defendant and his associate waiting for victim’s car to arrive and showed the defendant shoot at the victim’s car almost immediately upon its arrival. Defendant was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel even though counsel opened the door to gang affiliation because there was no evidence that the defendant belonged to a gang and the question was intended to show that other young men frequented the gas station where the murder occurred and could be the real culprits. Defendant was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel for failing to use a peremptory challenge, failing to challenge the qualifications of the state’s ballistics expert, or in failing to challenge the reliability of the ballistics methodology because any objections on these grounds would have been properly overruled. The trial court erred in failing to consider defendant’s age as a mitigating factor. Defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by cumulative errors. | E.T. Gallagher | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-467 |
| State v. Kirks | 112473 | Material witness warrant; R.C. 2937.106 through 2937.18; R.C. 2941.48; probable cause; standing of defendant; ineffective assistance of counsel; failure to object; cell phone mapping; lay witness; tactical decision; manifest weight of the evidence; circumstantial evidence. The trial court did not err in ordering the material witness warrant, and appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Celebrezze | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-468 |
| State v. Williams | 112425 | Motion for new trial; Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; confession; attempted murder; Crim.R. 33(A)(6); newly discovered evidence. Trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for new trial is reversed. The defendant was convicted of attempted murder. Subsequently, the defendant’s brother confessed to shooting the victim, in writing and orally during an interview with attorneys from the prosecutor office’s conviction-integrity unit. The confessions are consistent with evidence presented at trial. These confessions amount to newly discovered evidence, and the court erred by denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial. | Forbes | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-469 |
| Trunk v. Coleman | 112392 | California marriage laws; Ohio marriage laws; complaint for annulment; ex parte petition; delayed marriage certificate; California residency; consent; nullity of marriage; void ab initio; vexatious litigator; service of process. Judgment affirmed. An ex parte petition establishing the fact of marriage in California is not proof of a valid marriage when it was obtained without the consent of both parties. The nonconsenting party is entitled to an annulment, and the marriage is void ab initio. | Groves | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-470 |
| State v. George | 112380 | Rape; GSI; sufficiency; jury instruction; stepfather; force; alternative definition of force; sexual battery. It is undisputed appellant engaged in sexual activities with 18-year-old M.B., whose mother and appellant were married for six years, and the issue at trial was whether the state proved the element of force to sustain convictions for rape and gross sexual imposition. While M.B.’s testimony might have indicated some degree of physical force was used by appellant, the trial court instructed the jury that the element of force can also be proven by evidence that the victim’s will was overcome by fear or duress alone. The jury instruction was given in error because the alternative definition of force does not apply to an adult child pursuant to Supreme Court of Ohio precedent. The erroneous jury instruction was prejudicial and deprived appellant of a fair trial because it allowed the jury to convict appellant with less evidence for force, especially where the victim’s testimony was equivocal on the issue in this case. Appellant’s conviction of rape and GSI are therefore reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. Furthermore, appellant’s conviction of sexual battery under R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), Ohio’s incest statute, is reversed due to insufficient evidence because the stepfather-stepchild relationship had dissolved as a result of appellant’s divorce from M.B.’s mother. | Sheehan | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-471 |
| Cleveland Hts. v. Jackson | 112278 | Operating vehicle under the influence; impeding or blocking traffic; sufficiency of the evidence; weight of the evidence. Affirmed. The defendant’s convictions for the OVI and impeding or blocking traffic offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of that evidence based on the trial evidence demonstrating that the defendant (1) fell asleep while stopped at a traffic intersection, thereby blocking police officers from proceeding through the intersection in their lane of travel, and (2) was intoxicated. | S. Gallagher | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-472 |
| State v. Diamond | 112143 | Reagan Tokes Law; indefinite sentences; R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(a); R.C. 2929.144(B); constitutional; separation-of-powers doctrine; due process; right to a jury trial; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); consecutive-sentence findings; clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Trial court erred in failing to impose indefinite sentences on qualifying second-degree felonies that were subject to the Reagan Tokes Law. Defendant did not present any novel issues or new theory challenging the constitutional validity of any aspect of the Reagan Tokes Law left unaddressed by the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535. The record did not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s findings in support of the imposition of consecutive sentences. | E.A. Gallagher | 2/8/2024 | 2024-Ohio-473 |
| State ex rel. Jarrells v. Sutula | 113522 | Writ of procedendo; proceed to judgment; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); R.C. 2969.25; affidavit of prior civil actions; moot. Relator’s request for writ of procedendo to direct respondent judge to rule on two motions filed in underlying criminal cases was denied as moot when, during the pendency of the action, respondent entered judgment on the pending motions. | Kilbane | 2/7/2024 | 2024-Ohio-451 |
| State ex rel. Scott v. Burnside | 113399 | Writ of mandamus; legal right to relief; legal duty; adequate remedy at law; App.R. 29(C)(1); substitution of parties; waiver of service; motion for summary judgment; no legal duty; postrelease control; R.C. 2967.28; adequate remedy at law; R.C. 2969.25; affidavit of indigency; affidavit of statement of inmate account. A request for writ of mandamus to vacate any period of postrelease control imposed in an underlying criminal case was denied where relator did not identify any legal duty on the part of respondent to grant the requested relief and relator’s complaint was procedurally defective for failure to provide a necessary affidavit required by R.C. 2969.25(C). | Forbes | 2/6/2024 | 2024-Ohio-452 |