Case Name |
Case No. |
Topics and Issues |
Author |
Decided |
WebCite |
State v. Estes |
CA2013-12-126 |
Heroin
possession; drug paraphernalia possession; drug and drug paraphernalia
discovered underneath backseat of the cruiser after defendant exited the
back of the cruiser; manifest weight of the evidence; DNA on cut straw
was not defendant's DNA; state's failure to identify the source of the
DNA on cut straw did not violate defendant's due process rights. |
M. Powell |
7/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3295 |
In re R.L.S. |
CA2013-12-117 |
Residential parent; relocation; parenting time; modification; change of circumstances; in camera interview; competency; child. |
Ringland |
7/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3294 |
In re Estate of Rush |
CA2013-10-103 |
R.C. 2107.12; Standing; Persons Interested; R.C. 2107.11; Jurisdiction to Probate; Estoppel. |
Ringland |
7/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3293 |
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Davis |
CA2013-09-088 |
Motion to Dismiss, Standing, Motion for Summary Judgment, Foreclosure, Note, Mortgage. |
M. Powell |
7/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3292 |
Smith v. Pierce Twp. |
CA2013-10-079 |
Political
Subdivision Employee Immunity; Malice; Invasion of Privacy; Wrongful
Intrusion; Breach of Contract; Attorney; Client; Quantum Meruit;
Promissory Estoppel; Invasion of Privacy; Publicity. |
Ringland |
7/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3291 |
In re Z.C. |
CA2014-02-049; CA2014-02-050 |
Permanent custody; best interest; clean house; legally secure placement. |
Piper |
7/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3290 |
In re Hamblin |
CA2013-04-061 |
R.C.
2919.24(A)(1), 2151.022; Contributing to Unruliness or Delinquency of a
Child: To convict an accused of contributing to the unruliness or
delinquency of a child under R.C. 2919.24(A)(1), the state is required
to show only that the accused aided, abetted, induced, caused,
encouraged, or contributed to a child becoming unruly or delinquent; the
state need not prove that the child was formally adjudicated as an
unruly child. |
Piper |
7/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3289 |
State ex rel. Podolsky v. Wenninger |
CA2013-12-019 |
Motion
to unseal court records related to acquittal of county sheriff filed by
county resident and online newsletter; motion properly denied by trial
court on ground resident and newsletter did not qualify as individuals
permitted access to sealed records under R.C. 2953.53(D); motion to
unseal not a taxpayer's action pursuant to R.C. 309.13; Sup.R. 44
through 47 inapplicable; resident and newsletter not entitled to sealed
court records under R.C. 149.43; court records properly sealed following
acquittal of sheriff; trial court not required to conduct balancing
test of the private and public interests under R.C. 2953.52 anew
whenever a request to unseal records is filed, absent unusual and
exceptional circumstances; individual whose records are sealed not
required to relitigate the case and establish anew that his privacy
interest continues to outweigh the public interest in accessing the
records whenever a request to unseal records is filed, absent unusual
and exceptional circumstances. |
M. Powell |
7/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3288 |
Dimitriou v. Dimitriou |
CA2013-05-045 |
The
trial court properly found appellant in contempt where there was clear
and convincing evidence that appellant knew of his support orders,
failed to pay them, and did not prove that he has the inability to pay.
Despite Appellant's lack of income, appellant presented no evidence
that he did not have the capacity to earn more money in order to abide
by the support orders. |
Piper |
7/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3189 |
In re A.W. |
CA2014-03-005 |
Permanent
Custody; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Best Interest of the Child;
The juvenile court did not err and acted in the best interest of the
child by granting permanent custody to appellee, the Fayette County
Department of Job and Family Services, Children Services Division, where
appellant, who suffered from depression and severe anxiety, was twice
found under the influence of drugs or alcohol while caring for her
daughter, defied court orders by leaving her daughter in the care of
certain individuals, and exhibited an inability to maintain financial
stability. |
S. Powell |
7/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3188 |
State v. McCord |
CA2013-12-096 |
Appellant
appeals the trial court's decision denying his motion for
postconviction relief. Appellant argues his sentence was void because
the trial court failed to notify him at the time of sentencing of a
potential community service requirement if he failed to pay court costs,
and because the trial court imposed postrelease control for the
unspecified felony of murder. The trial court properly ruled
appellant's argument of a void sentence due to the trial court's failure
to notify him of a potential community service requirement was barred
by res judicata where appellant failed to appeal the trial court's prior
rulings on the issue, and where the language of the statute at the time
of sentencing does not support appellant's argument. The trial court
properly ruled appellant's argument of a void sentence due to the trial
court's imposition of postrelease control for the unspecified felony of
murder was barred by res judicata where appellant failed to appeal the
trial court's prior rulings on the issue, and where appellant's argument
was rendered moot by a nunc pro tunc entry in 2011. |
S. Powell |
7/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3187 |
State v. Ossege |
CA2013-11-086, CA2013-11-087 |
OVI; R.C. 4511.19; R.C. 2919.22; mens rea; substantial compliance; equal protection clause; motion to suppress. |
Hendrickson |
7/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3186 |
Reed v. Triton Servs., Inc. |
CA2013-07-055, CA2013-07-060 |
Specific Performance; Equitable Defenses; Money Damages; Stock; Shares. |
Ringland |
7/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3185 |
Bank of New York Mellon v. Brock |
CA2014-01-003 |
Motion
to strike; motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); Civ.R. 56(E);
documents attached to affidavits; evidentiary materials; genuine issue
of material fact; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; debt collector;
timing of assignment of debt. |
Hendrickson |
7/14/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3085 |
Huntington Natl. Bank Mtge. Loan Dept. v. Peppel |
CA2013-11-114 |
Appellant
appeals a decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to
appellee in a foreclosure action. Appellee did not fail to satisfy its
burden of producing evidence that affirmatively demonstrates the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact where it did not attach business
records to a sworn affidavit by appellee asserting the loan was in
default. Appellant's failure to move the trial court to strike that
portion of the affidavit waived his challenge to the affidavit on
appeal. In ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the trial court
was not required to consider as evidence appellant's Memorandum in
Opposition or his Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer. These
materials are not included in Civ.R. 56(C)'s exclusive list of materials
the trial court may consider for summary judgment motions. |
Ringland |
7/14/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3084 |
Wilmington v. Lubbers |
CA2013-06-013 |
Motion to suppress; traffic violation; slow speed violation; probable cause to believe traffic violation occurred. |
Hendrickson |
7/14/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3083 |
Pangallo v. Adkins |
CA2014-02-019 |
Summary
Judgment; R.C. 955.28(B); Common Law Negligence; Dog Bite; Landlord;
Harborer; The trial court did not err by granting appellee's motion for
summary judgment regarding appellant's claims under R.C. 955.28(B) and
common law negligence where appellee was not the harborer of his
tenant's dog that caused appellant's injuries. The incident did not
occur in any common area shared by appellee and the tenant, but rather,
at the bottom of the lone staircase leading up to the tenant's second
floor apartment. The staircase, just as the apartment itself, was an
area where the tenant exhibited sole possession and control. |
S. Powell |
7/14/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3082 |
Holcomb v. Holcomb |
CA2013-10-080 |
Summary judgment; open and obvious; attendant circumstances; active negligence; assumed duty. |
Ringland |
7/14/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3081 |
State v. Taylor |
CA2013-10-186 |
Crim.R. 32.1; motion to withdraw guilty plea; hearing. |
Ringland |
7/14/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3080 |
State v. Farmer |
CA2013-06-097 |
Manifest Weight; Cruelty to a Companion Animal; R.C. 959.13(B). |
Ringland |
7/14/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3079 |
Batty v. Batty |
CA2013-06-088 |
The
trial court did not abuse its discretion by not ordering appellee to
submit to random drug screening, by ordering unsupervised visitation,
and by not ordering appellee to submit proof that she was attending the
court-ordered counseling sessions where there was no evidence presented
to establish that these conditions were necessary and where the trial
court properly balanced the R.C. 3109.051(D) visitation factors. |
Piper |
7/14/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3078 |
State v. Wyatt |
CA2013-06-005 |
The
trial court properly overruled appellant's motion to suppress because
the search warrant was issued on probable cause where the
officer/affiant gave details supporting his belief that drug-related
charges were occurring on the property and because appellant voluntarily
waived his Sixth Amendment rights by asking to speak to police after he
had been arraigned and appointed counsel. Appellant's convictions were
supported by sufficient evidence and not rendered against the manifest
weight of the evidence where the state presented evidence that appellant
knowingly possessed chemicals and materials necessary for the
manufacturing of methamphetamine, such as appellant's fingerprints on
the finished narcotic and a first-hand witness' testimony that appellant
carried materials into the laboratory. Appellant does not have a
constitutional right to a plea bargain, so that the state did not
violate any of appellant's rights by withdrawing its plea offer upon
appellant's decision to move forward with the suppression hearing. |
Piper |
7/7/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3009 |
State v. Kievman |
CA2013-11-081 |
Right
to Counsel; Ineffective Waiver: Appellant's waiver of the right to
counsel was ineffective since trial court did not fully advise her of
the nature of all of the charges against her, the range of allowable
punishments for all of the charges, the possible defenses to the charges
or the circumstances in mitigation thereof. |
Ringland |
7/7/2014 |
2014-Ohio-3008 |
State v. Fields |
CA2013-11-105 |
Appellant's
convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not rendered
against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state presented
evidence that appellant punched the corrections officer in the face and
then refused to obey the commands of other corrections officers to stop
resisting when they tried to restore peace in the area where the attack
occurred. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering
appellant to be restrained during the trial where the court heard
evidence that appellant had several previous convictions for assaulting
guards and corrections officers, and that appellant had a history of
violence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding
incident reports and other parts of the corrections officer's personnel
file inadmissible where such reports were irrelevant and would not help
the jury understand the circumstances surrounding the incident. The
cumulative error doctrine was inapplicable because no errors occurred
during the trial that denied appellant the right to a fair trial. The
trial court properly found that appellant's convictions for obstructing
official business and assault did not merge were the acts were committed
with separate conduct and a separate animus. |
Piper |
6/30/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2900 |
Kranz v. Kranz |
CA2013-10-102 |
Motion
for change of custody; motion for contempt; child support; guardian ad
litem; in chambers interview; R.C. 3109.04(B); Civ.R. 7(B). |
Hendrickson |
6/30/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2899 |
State v. Hobbs |
CA2013-10-098 |
Anders no error. |
Per Curiam |
6/30/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2898 |
Sterling Constr., Inc. v. Alkire |
CA2013-08-028, CA2013-08-030 |
The
trial court improperly found that the Consumer Sales Practices Act did
not apply to a consumer transaction wherein the appellant agreed to pay
for appellee's remodeling services because the court determined that the
parties had a personal relationship that took their transaction out of
the Act's purview. The trial court improperly found that the parties
did not enter into an implied contract where the terms were not
concrete, but there was a tacit understanding that the appellant agreed
to pay for services and appellee agreed to provide such services. |
Piper |
6/30/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2897 |
In re D.K.W. |
CA2014-02-001 |
Permanent
custody; best interest; motion to continue permanent custody hearing to
explore potential placement with relatives, denied; Juv.R. 23. |
M. Powell |
6/30/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2896 |
State v. Snead |
CA2014-01-014 |
Res Judicata, Sentencing, Sexual Predator, Postrelease Control, Plea Colloquy. |
S. Powell |
6/30/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2895 |
State v. Webb |
CA2014-01-013 |
Motion
for New Trial; No Brady Violation; Alternative Suspects;
Newly-Discovered Evidence; Fire Science; The trial court did not err by
denying appellant's motion for a new trial based on an alleged Brady
violation where the purported evidence of two alternative suspects was
not material in that there exists no reasonable probability that the
result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been
disclosed to defense. The record contains extensive and overwhelming
evidence establishing appellant's guilt, including a vast array of
physical evidence implicating him in the crime, as well as a clearly
defined motive for wanting his entire family dead. The trial court also
did not err by denying appellant's motion for a new trial based on new
advances in so-called "fire science" where the evidence merely impeached
and was contradictory to the evidence presented by the state at trial
regarding the origins of the fire. Contrary to appellant's claims,
unlike DNA evidence, the alleged "newly discovered" evidence regarding
fire investigations cannot be construed as definite proof that appellant
did not start the fire. |
S. Powell |
6/30/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2894 |
Reynolds-Cornett v. Reynolds |
CA2013-09-175 |
Attorney fees, child support, imputed income, overtime pay, gross income, R.C. 3105.73(B), R.C. 3119.05. |
S. Powell |
6/30/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2893 |
In re W.F. |
CA2014-01-002 |
Permanent custody; adjudication; dependency; appeal; final appealable order; ineffective assistance of counsel. |
Piper |
6/30/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2892 |
State v. Berry |
CA2013-11-084 |
Appellant
appeals a $10,000 judgment against it entered by the Clermont County
Municipal Court. A former agent of appellant executed a $10,000 bond to
secure the release of a criminal defendant. The criminal defendant
failed to appear for his sentencing hearing, and appellant failed to
appear at the subsequent bond forfeiture proceedings to show cause as to
why it should not be liable. Thereafter, the trial court entered
judgment against it on the bond. Where appellant's own exhibit shows
that the criminal defendant was not incarcerated in another jurisdiction
until after the criminal defendant had failed to appear three times,
including the bond forfeiture proceeding, a showing of incarceration is
not good cause to release the surety from liability on the bond. Where
appellant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment does not show
that fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of the other party
prevented it from fully and fairly presenting its defense to liability
on the bond, appellant fails to allege operative facts justifying relief
under Civ.R. 60(B)(3). Additionally, appellant failed to show
excusable neglect where the facts and circumstances showed that
considerations of fairness did not outweigh the need for finality of
judgments. |
Hendrickson |
6/23/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2715 |
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Brooks |
CA2013-11-219 |
Final appealable order; Civ.R. 54(B); R.C. 2505.02(B); order of sale; foreclosure. |
Ringland |
6/23/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2714 |
In re C.E.J. |
CA2013-04-059 |
Conflict
of Interests; Guardian Ad Litem; Child's Best Interest; Child Support
Order; Visitation Schedule; Tax Exemption; Health Insurance
Determination. |
Ringland |
6/23/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2713 |
Black v. Sakelios |
CA2013-10-094 |
Plaintiff-appellant
appeals from the Warren County Court of Common Pleas decision finding
he was not entitled to the return of personal property he had given to
relatives of his former girlfriend while living in her house. He also
challenges two evidentiary rulings by the trial court, and the trial
court's imposition of sanctions on him for failing to attend a
court-ordered mediation session prior to the trial. Appellee's failure
to plead a "gift defense" did not preclude a finding that appellant
gifted some of his property to appellee's relatives, where the issue of
gift was raised to disprove appellant's claims and not to assert an
affirmative defense. Under Civ.R. 53(D), appellant may not raise
evidentiary issues regarding the introduction of appellee's credit card
statements on appeal because he did not raise the objections before the
trial court. Plain error will be recognized only in extremely rare
cases involving exceptional circumstances that call into question the
basic fairness or integrity of the judicial process; there are no such
circumstances here. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when
it declined to allow appellant's testimony regarding a repair estimate
he received for his plasma screen television. The estimate constituted
inadmissible hearsay because appellant did not call the authors of the
estimate as witnesses or anyone else who could authenticate the
estimate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed
sanctions on appellant for failing to appear at a court-ordered
mediation prior to trial. The court acted within its authority and
limited the sanctions only to actual costs incurred for the mediator and
appellee's attorney fees. |
M. Powell |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2587 |
State v. Casey |
CA2013-10-090 |
Motion to Suppress; Reasonable Suspicion; Possession of Marijuana. |
Hendrickson |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2586 |
Ownerland Realty, Inc. v. Zhang |
CA2013-09-077, CA2013-10-097 |
Summary judgment; fraudulent inducement; unjust enrichment; attorney fees; frivolous conduct. |
Hendrickson |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2585 |
State v. Shalash |
CA2013-06-052 |
Controlled
Substance Analog; Void-For-Vagueness: R.C. 3719.01(HH)'s definition of
"controlled substance analog" is not unconstitutionally vague as the
term is clearly and specifically defined, in words readily
comprehensible to the ordinary reader and provides adequate notice of
what conduct is prohibited, as the statute clearly provides that
substances that have been chemically designed to be similar to
controlled substances, but which are not themselves listed on the
controlled substance schedules, will nonetheless be considered as
schedule I or II controlled substances if they (1) are substantially
similar chemically to drugs that are on those schedules and (2) produce
similar effects on the central nervous system as substances that are on
those schedules or are intended or represented to produce effects
similar to those produced by substances that are on those schedules.
Daubert Hearing: The decision on whether hold a Daubert hearing is a
matter within the trial court's sound discretion, but the trial court
abuses its discretion where a novel issue of law in this state is
presented. |
Hendrickson |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2584 |
State v. Rodriguez |
CA2013-11-011 |
Public
Records Request; R.C. 149.43(B)(8); No Justiciable Claim; The trial
court did not err by denying appellant's most recent public records
request where appellant, who is an inmate, already received the
requested documentation on two occasions and otherwise failed to
establish any justiciable claim for which the items he sought would be
material. |
S. Powell |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2583 |
State v. Kwambana |
CA2013-12-092 |
Allied
Offenses of Similar Import; R.C. 2941.25; Kidnapping; Separate Victims;
Separate Animus; The trial court did not err by failing to merge
appellant's four kidnapping convictions for the purpose of sentencing
where each offense was committed against a separate victim. A
kidnapping that involves multiple kidnapping victims necessarily
includes a finding of a separate animus for each kidnapping offense. |
S. Powell |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2582 |
State v. Grindstaff |
CA2013-09-074 |
R.C.
4511.19(A)(1); OVI; operating a vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol; impairment; failure to appear; flight; consciousness of guilt;
jury instruction; abuse of discretion; prosecutorial misconduct;
manifest weight of the evidence; sufficiency of the evidence; Crim.R.
29(C); motion for acquittal. |
Hendrickson |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2581 |
In re G.F. |
CA2013-12-248 |
Permanent Custody; Manifest Weight; New Counsel; Split Roles; Guardian Ad Litem. |
Ringland |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2580 |
In re G.W. |
CA2013-12-246 |
Permanent custody, legal custody; ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to file motion. |
S. Powell |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2579 |
Jackson v. Hogeback |
CA2013-10-187 |
Directed
verdict; vicarious liability; outside scope of employment; negligent
hiring; negligent supervision; negligent retention; summary judgment. |
Piper |
6/16/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2578 |
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Jackson |
CA2014-01-018 |
The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion
to strike portions of an affidavit offered by appellee to demonstrate
its right to foreclose where the affidavit was based on personal
knowledge of the affiant and made reference to admissible business
records. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's motion
to compel appellee to produce the original note where appellant did not
raise a genuine issue as to the authenticity of the original and it was
not otherwise unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original
note. Summary judgment was appropriate where the appellee demonstrated
that it held the note and mortgage, appellant had defaulted on the note,
and the amount due was accelerated. |
Piper |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2480 |
Asset Mgt. West 9, L.L.C. v. McBrayer |
CA2014-02-004 |
Summary
judgment was proper where there were no genuine issues of material
fact, and the record demonstrated that appellee held the note and
mortgage, appellant defaulted on the loan, and the total amount due and
owing was accelerated. |
Piper |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2479 |
Fears v. Cooper |
CA2013-12-037 |
The
trial court properly dismissed appellant's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus where appellant's petition was not properly supported with his
commitment papers, and where the petition was not the proper method for
challenging the sufficiency of the indictments or the constitutionality
of the statutes under which appellant was convicted. |
Piper |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2478 |
Briggs v. Franklin Pre-Release Ctr. |
CA2013-10-035 |
Workers'
Compensation, Substantial Aggravation, Pre-existing Condition, R.C.
4123.04, Civ.R. 50, JNOV, Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. |
M. Powell |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2477 |
Estate of Everhart v. Everhart |
CA2013-07-019 CA2013-09-026 |
Strike
Jury Demand; Civ.R. 38; Civ.R. 39; Waiver of Jury Trial; Common Law
Marriage; Undue Influence; Property Transfer; Deed Execution;
Rescission; Amend Pleadings' Civ.R. 15(B); Unjust Enrichment. |
Ringland |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2476 |
State v. Bayless |
CA2013-10-020, CA2013-10-021 |
Petition
For Postconviction Relief; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Res
Judicata; The trial court did not err by denying appellant's petition
for postconviction relief as his claims alleging ineffective assistance
of counsel were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. |
S. Powell |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2475 |
State v. Waltz |
CA2013-10-077 |
Custody
modification; R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and best interest; required finding
under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) implicitly made by trial court;
guardian ad litem performance; Sup.R. 48(D)(13). |
M. Powell |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2474 |
Hunter-June v. Pitts |
CA2013-09-178 |
Custody
modification; R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and best interest; required finding
under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii) implicitly made by trial court;
guardian ad litem performance; Sup.R. 48(D)(13); in camera interviews of
the children not preserved. |
M. Powell |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2473 |
State v. Morgan |
CA2013-08-146, CA2013-08-147 |
Motion
to Suppress; Crim.R. 41(A); R.C. 1717.06; Qualified Humane Agent;
Animal Cruelty; R.C. 959.13(A); Sufficient Evidence; Not Against
Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Other Acts Evidence; Evid.R. 404(B);
Other Purpose; Prosecutorial Misconduct; Closing Argument; Proper
Statement Regarding Submitted Evidence; Common Sense; No Plain Error;
The trial court did not err by denying appellants' motion to suppress
where search warrant was requested from properly appointed humane agent
authorized by R.C. 1717.06 to seek and execute the search warrant in
compliance with Crim.R. 41(A). In addition, appellants respective
convictions for cruelty to animals in violation of R.C. 959.13(A)(1)
were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest
weight of the evidence where the state provided overwhelming,
uncontroverted evidence indicating a horse confined on their property
and in their care was on the verge of death due to lack of sufficient
food and water. Moreover, the trial court did not err, let alone commit
plain error, by the introduction of so-called "other acts" evidence
relating to two prior allegations of animal cruelty levied against
appellants in regards to their horses as the evidence was properly used
to prove their knowledge and the absence of mistake or accident. The
state also did not commit prosecutorial misconduct during its closing
argument as the state's comment during its rebuttal closing argument
that the horse "has been starved" is not a misstatement of the law, nor
did such comment have the potential to confuse or mislead the jury in
any way. Finally, a request by the state during its closing argument
for the jury to use its common sense has been determined to be neither
prosecutorial misconduct, nor plain error. |
S. Powell |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2472 |
State v. Doby |
CA2013-05-084 |
Evidence;
Confrontation Clause; Testimonial; Jury Instructions; Murder; Voluntary
Manslaughter; Prosecutorial Misconduct; Hearsay. |
M. Powell |
6/9/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2471 |
Klan v. Med. Radiologists, Inc. |
CA2014-01-007 |
Motion
to Dismiss; Notice Pleading; Without Prejudice; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); Civ.R.
8(A); The trial court did not err by dismissing appellant's complaint
against appellees pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where he failed to meet
the minimal pleading requirements found under Civ.R. 8(A). However, the
trial court did err by dismissing appellant's complaint with prejudice
where he could have properly pled the claim in another way, so as to set
forth sufficient underlying facts that relate to and support the
alleged abuse of process claim. A dismissal for failure to state a
claim is without prejudice except in those cases where the claim cannot
be pleaded in any other way. |
S. Powell |
6/2/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2344 |
Jewett v. Jewett |
CA2013-11-110 |
Interpretation
and Clarification; QDRO; Retirement and Pension Benefits; Accrued
Benefits; The trial court's interpretation and clarification of the QDRO
as it relates to the term "accrued benefits" was proper and is
consistent with the trial court's clear intent for appellee to receive
one-half share of the marital portion of appellant's pension plan,
regardless of how those benefits may be classified thereafter. |
S. Powell |
6/2/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2343 |
State v. Wilson |
CA2013-10-034 |
Motion
for postconviction relief; R.C. 2953.21; evidentiary hearing; findings
of fact; conclusions of law; ineffective assistance; minimum prison
term; motion to suppress; statements made to law enforcement. |
Hendrickson |
6/2/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2342 |
State v. Kilbarger |
CA2013-04-013 |
Rape;
R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c); gross sexual imposition; R.C. 2907.05(A)(5);
victim's ability to consent was substantially impaired because of a
mental condition; manifest weight of the evidence. |
M. Powell |
6/2/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2341 |
State v. Setty |
CA2013-06-049, CA2013-06-050 |
Rape;
attempted rape; sexual battery; disseminating matter harmful to
juveniles; felonious assault; multiple indictments; motion in limine;
proffer of evidence; expert qualifications; Evid.R. 702; prosecutorial
misconduct; closing statements; plain error; ineffective assistance of
counsel; scope of cross-examination; leading questions; deficient
performance; manifest weight of the evidence; insufficient evidence;
credibility determination by trier of fact; penetration; serious
physical harm; obscene material; principles and purposes of sentencing;
consecutive sentences; permissible statutory range; R.C. 2907.02(B). |
Hendrickson |
6/2/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2340 |
In re R.E. |
CA2013-12-245 |
Permanent custody; manifest weight best interest; case plan requirements; domestic violence. |
Hendrickson |
6/2/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2338 |
State v. Florence |
CA2013-08-148 |
Sufficiency
of the evidence; obstructing official business; disorderly conduct;
R.C. 2917.11(B)(1); R.C. 2917.11(E)(3); right to allocution; Crim.R. 32;
misdemeanor sentencing; R.C. 2929.21; R.C. 2929.22; court costs;
community service; R.C. 2947.23. |
M. Powell |
6/2/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2337 |
State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol |
CA2012-05-034 |
The
relator is not entitled to damages and fees because the records he
requested fell within the investigatory work product exception to the
Ohio Public Records Act so that respondent did not violate the act by
not producing the records where the records were created by law
enforcement with the intent to be used in a future criminal proceeding. |
Per Curiam |
5/27/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2244 |
State v. Lyons |
CA2013-08-074 |
Restitution; Hearsay; Reasonable Certainty. |
Ringland |
5/27/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2239 |
State v. Kinsworthy |
CA2013-06-060 |
Civil
Protection Order; Manifest Weight; Insufficient Evidence; R.C. 2929.21;
R.C. 2929.22; Misdemeanor Sentencing; Consecutive Sentences; Financial
Sanctions. |
Ringland |
5/27/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2238 |
Renner v. Renner |
CA2014-01-004 |
The
trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding appellee custody of
the parties' child where such was in the child's best interest and
where the trial court considered all relevant evidence, including
testimony of appellant's expert witness, when balancing the best
interest factors. |
Piper |
5/27/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2237 |
State v. Daugherty |
CA2013-08-063 |
Post-Sentence
Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea; Sentence; Issue Not Raised Before Trial
Court; Waiver; Ineffective Assistance; Bias; Appellant waived argument
regarding the trial court's sentencing decision where he did not raise
the issue within his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
However, even if not waived, a review of the record does not establish
any error in the trial court's sentencing decision ordering appellant to
serve a jointly recommended mandatory eight-year prison term resulting
from his guilty plea to aggravated vehicular homicide. In addition, the
trial court did not err by denying appellant's post-sentence motion to
withdraw his guilty plea where appellant failed to show he received
ineffective assistance from his trial counsel's alleged failure to
disclose his alleged bias due to counsel's prior representation of the
victim's uncle and local bar where accident occurred. |
S. Powell |
5/27/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2236 |
State v. Steinmetz |
CA2013-10-185 |
Guilty Plea; Plea Colloquy; Crim.R. 11(C); Plea Agreement; Crim.R. 11(F). |
S. Powell |
5/27/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2235 |
State v. Blanda |
CA2013-06-109 |
Postconviction
Relief; Res Judicata; Jury Questions During Deliberation; In-Chambers
Discussion; Written Response to Jury Question; Not Critical Stage;
Felony Murder; Essential Elements; Causation and Foreseeability; The
trial court did not err by denying appellant's petition for
postconviction relief as his claims regarding the trial court's
responses to the jury's questions during deliberations were barred by
the doctrine of res judicata. In addition, in-chambers discussion
regarding the trial court's written responses to the jury's questions
regarding the essential elements of felony murder was not a critical
stage of the proceedings requiring appellant's presence. Finally, the
trial court's written response to the jury's question during
deliberation regarding the essential elements of felony murder was
proper as causation is an essential element of the crime, whereas
foreseeability is not. When viewed as a whole, there is no indication
that the jury instructions regarding the essential elements of felony
murder would confuse or mislead the jury so as to constitute prejudicial
error. |
S. Powell |
5/27/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2234 |
State v. Reeder |
CA2013-05-075, CA2013-07-126 |
Defendant-appellant
appeals his conviction following a guilty plea to one count of rape and
sentencing to nine years imprisonment. Appellant argues that his plea
was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; that the court improperly
denied his motion to withdraw; that his counsel was ineffective; and
that the trial court failed to advise him of the potential for community
service if he failed to pay court costs. Appellant's guilty plea was
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because appellant received a full
Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, and the totality of circumstances indicate
that he subjectively understood the consequences of his plea. The trial
court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's Crim.R.
32.1 post-sentence motion to withdraw because appellant failed to
demonstrate manifest injustice. Appellant waived his right to claim
ineffective assistance of counsel when he entered a guilty plea, except
to the extent the defects caused the plea to be less than knowing and
voluntary. Appellant entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
plea, so he is precluded from claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel. The trial court did not err in failing to notify appellant that
it could order him to perform community service in the event he did not
pay imposed court costs because R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) provides that this
failure does not negate or limit the authority of the court to order
appellant to perform community service. |
Ringland |
5/27/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2233 |
State v. Furr |
CA2013-04-066 |
Motion
to Withdraw Guilty Plea; Jurisdiction; Res Judicata: Trial court erred
in determining it lacked jurisdiction to rule on appellant's motion to
withdraw guilty plea; while trial court was temporarily divested of
jurisdiction when appellant filed a notice of appeal with court of
appeals, it regained jurisdiction to rule on appellant's motion when
court of appeals dismissed appellant's appeal without addressing its
substantive merits. Trial court erred in finding it was precluded by
res judicata from ruling on appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty
plea, because neither the trial court nor court of appeals had ruled on
the merits of appellant's motion and all but one of the claims appellant
raised in support of his motion could not have been raised on direct
appeal following his conviction. |
Ringland |
5/20/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2138 |
State v. Davis |
CA2013-12-129, CA2013-12-130 |
Intervention
in Lieu of Conviction; R.C. 2951.041(F); Clear and Unambiguous; The
trial court erred by allowing appellee to continue on his intervention
in lieu of conviction treatment after serving only four days in jail as a
result of his admitted violation to the terms and conditions of his
ILC. The clear and unambiguous language of R.C. 2951.041(F) requires
the trial court to sentence a defendant who is found to have failed his
or her program of treatment in lieu of conviction to an appropriate
sanction under R.C. Chapter 2929. |
S. Powell |
5/19/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2122 |
Marron v. Marron |
CA2013-11-109, CA2013-11-113 |
Child Support; Spousal Support; Income; Voluntarily Underemployed; Imputation of Income; K-1 Income. |
Piper |
5/19/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2121 |
Odom Industries, Inc. v. Shoupe |
CA2013-09-069 |
Unemployment compensation; just cause; R.C. 4141.29. |
Hendrickson |
5/19/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2120 |
In re Guardianship of Smith |
CA2013-09-165 |
Guardianship;
third-party appointed guardian; denial of parents' application to be
appointed guardian of their adult son; restrictive alternatives to
guardianship not introduced at guardianship hearing; R.C. 2111.02(C). |
M. Powell |
5/19/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2119 |
State v. Combs |
CA2013-08-008 |
Defendant-appellant
was arrested for a violation of R.C. 2950.05 after an officer from the
Brown County Sheriff's Office found him living in a motel room in
Ripley, Ohio. Appellant, a convicted sex offender, had registered his
parents address as his residence. He was convicted of failure to
provide notice of a change of address after a bench trial. On appeal,
appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. An individual can
have more than one "residence," under the everyday meaning of the term.
R.C. 2905.05 requires that the sex offenders to which it applies
register any change of address, including the acquisition of a second
residence. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to convict
appellant pursuant to R.C. 2950.05 where a rational trier of fact could
have found that he acquired a second residence and did not register it. |
Piper |
5/19/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2117 |
In re M.N. |
CA2013-12-135; CA2013-12 136 |
Anders no error. |
Per Curiam |
5/12/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2009 |
State v. Rabe |
CA2013-09-068 |
Appellant's
motion to suppress was properly denied by the trial court where the
officers had probable cause to arrest appellant for his crimes and where
the highway patrol trooper performed field sobriety tests properly.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by closing discovery on the
date it allowed appellant to substitute his counsel where the record
demonstrates that there was no new evidence to be discovered that could
not have been discovered prior to appellant making his motion to
substitute counsel. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of
counsel were the record demonstrates that using a different tactic at
the motion to suppress hearing would not have resulted in the motion
being granted, and where the record shows that even if counsel had
objected to a photograph as being inadmissible, the photograph was
admissible. Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient
evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where
the state presented testimony and evidence from witnesses to the
accident and investigating officers that appellant was driving under the
influence of alcohol when he caused an accident and fled the scene.
The trial court properly sentenced appellant to pay restitution and
fines after considering appellant's present and future ability to pay.
The trial court properly sentenced appellant to three years in prison
after considering the purposes and principles of sentencing as is
required by the sentencing statute. |
Piper |
5/12/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2008 |
In re E.G. |
CA2013-12-224 |
Permanent custody; best interest; autism; substance abuse; treatment. |
Piper |
5/12/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2007 |
Learning Tree Academy, Ltd. v. Holeyfield |
CA2013-10-194 |
The
trial court lacked jurisdiction to convert appellee's Civ.R. 60(B)
motion to a motion for leave to file objections out of time once the
trial court had issued its final decision, adopting the magistrate's
decision. |
Piper |
5/12/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2006 |
BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Mapp |
CA2013-10-193 |
Motion
to Vacate; Foreclosure; Standing; Interest in Note and Mortgage; Motion
for Relief From Judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); No Abuse of Discretion; The
trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to vacate where
appellee established that it had an interest in both the note and
mortgage, either of which were sufficient to establish standing, at the
time it filed its complaint in foreclosure. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion for relief from
judgment as he failed to present the necessary operative facts in order
to establish a meritorious defense. Beyond his own general allegations,
appellant provided no evidence to support his claim that the mortgage
documents were somehow forged, altered or otherwise tampered with. In
addition, changes to appellant's business and impending divorce did not
constitute excusable neglect for his failure to respond to appellee's
motion for summary judgment. |
S. Powell |
5/12/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2005 |
State v. Swift |
CA2013-08-161 |
Motion to Suppress; Marijuana Cultivation; Search Warrant; Fourth Amendment; Sentence; Contrary to Law. |
Ringland |
5/12/2014 |
2014-Ohio-2004 |
Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roberts |
CA2013-09-089 |
Service of process; Civ.R. 4.6(D); Business Records Exception, void judgment; Civ.R. 60(B). |
M. Powell |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1893 |
Burchwell v. Warren Cty. |
CA2013-09-079 |
Declaratory
judgment; motion to dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); failure to state a claim;
Civ.R. 52; findings of fact; conclusions of law; abuse of discretion. |
Ringland |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1892 |
State v. Graham |
CA2013-07-066 |
Sentencing; Disparity in Sentencing; Consistent Sentencing; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Waiver. |
Hendrickson |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1891 |
Kairn v. Clark |
CA2013-06-059, CA2013-08-071 |
Child Support; Voluntary Unemployment; Imputed Income; Imprisonment; R.C. 3119.05(I)(2). |
Ringland |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1890 |
Williams v. Bur. of Workers' Comp. |
CA2013-09-006 |
Summary
Judgment; Workers' Compensation; Six-Year Time Limitation Period; R.C.
4123.52; The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to
appellee in appellant's claim for workers' compensation benefits where
the six-year limitation period found in R.C.4123.52 had expired.
Appellant's motion seeking to add an additional condition did not
constitute an application for compensation. |
S. Powell |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1889 |
Huegemann v. VanBakel |
CA2013-08-022 |
Final
Appealable Order; Provisional Remedy; Denial of Motion To Dismiss For
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: Trial court's order overruling
appellants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was a
final order because (1) it is a "provisional remedy" as defined in R.C.
2505.02(A)(3), since it is a proceeding ancillary to an action that it
is attendant upon or aids another proceeding, or grows out of and is
auxiliary to another suit and is filed to aid the primary suit; (2) the
order, in effect, determined the action with respect to the provisional
remedy, because it permits appellees to proceed with their action
against appellants; (3) forcing appellants to delay their appeal until
final judgment is entered will deny them a meaningful or effective
remedy. Personal Jurisdiction; Nonresident Parties; Long-arm
Jurisdiction, Due Process, R.C. 2307.382, Civ.R. 4.3; Ohio's Corrupt
Activity Act: Trial court did not err in overruling the motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction raised by several nonresident
appellants named as defendants in an action brought against them under
Ohio's Corrupt Activity Act in R.C. 2923.31 et seq.; the allegations in
appellees' complaint and the evidence in the record, when viewed in a
light most favorable to appellees as the nonmoving party, showed that
appellants' conduct fell within Ohio's "long-arm" statute in R.C.
2307.382 and Civ.R.4.3 and that trial court's assertion of jurisdiction
over appellants did not deprive them of due process. |
Ringland |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1888 |
Fox v. Fox |
CA2013-08-066 |
Relationship
between former spouse and paramour; motion to terminate spousal
support; cohabitation; pre-divorce decree evidence of relationship
between former spouse and paramour excluded by trial court;
notwithstanding magistrate's erroneous finding that cohabitation
requires sexual relations, trial court properly adopted magistrate's
decision rather than remanding matter to magistrate; Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).
|
M. Powell |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1887 |
M&T Bank v. Johns |
CA2013-04-032 |
Foreclosure; Standing; Business Records. |
Ringland |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1886 |
State v. Ruffin |
CA2013-11-208 |
Anders no error. |
Per Curiam |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1885 |
Dollries v. Dollries |
CA2012-08-167, CA2012-11-234 |
The
trial court did not abuse its discretion by valuing the business as it
did because the trial court's finding that the valuation offered by
appellee's expert was supported by the record. However, the trial
court's decision regarding adjustments made to the valuation of the
business was not supported by the record. The trial court did not
consider the tax consequences of the property division so that on
remand, the trial court must demonstrate that it considered the
applicable tax consequences of dividing the business. The trial court
did not abuse its discretion by not allowing husband to offer rebuttal
testimony where the parties themselves asked for a three-hour hearing
and were both constrained to that time limit. The trial court abused
its discretion by adding $120,000 in perks to appellant's income where
that figure was not supported by the record. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay appellee $6,000 per
month for approximately 32 years to compensation appellee for her
portion of the marital interest where the circumstances indicated that
appellant had limited cash flow and the trial court otherwise protected
appellee's interest to guarantee that it would be paid. |
Piper |
5/5/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1883 |
State v. Brown |
CA2013-11-206 |
Anders no error. |
Per Curiam |
4/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1798 |
State v. Bishop |
CA2013-06-098 |
The
trial court should have addressed appellant's motion to waive court
costs because the motion was properly pending at the time the trial
court resentenced appellant according to R.C. 2947.23. |
Piper |
4/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1797 |
Bank of New York Mellon v. Putman |
CA2012-12-267 |
Summary
Judgment; Foreclosure; Standing; Interest in Note and Mortgage; Motion
to Strike; Affidavit; Loan Servicing Agent; No Abuse of Discretion; The
trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to
plaintiff-appellee where it established it had an interest in both the
note and the mortgage, either of which were sufficient to establish
standing, at the time it filed its complaint for foreclosure. In
addition, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by denying
appellant's motion to strike an affidavit from a loan servicing agent
as affidavits from a loan servicing agent are proper summary judgment
evidence in foreclosure actions. |
S. Powell |
4/28/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1796 |
State v. Conley |
CA2013-06-055 |
Sufficiency of the evidence; criminal damaging; R.C. 2909.06; consent. |
Hendrickson |
4/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1699 |
Fannie Mae v. Winding |
CA2013-09-179 |
Survivorship Tenancy; Constructive Trust; Equitable Lien; Purchase-Money Resulting Trust; Foreclosure; Mortgage. |
Ringland |
4/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1698 |
State v. Applegate |
CA2013-08-070 |
Aggravated
menacing; aggravated trespassing; manifest weight of the evidence;
customer's threat to retrieve assault rifle from his vehicle and "clean
house;" and customer's refusal to leave the store following his
threatening comment despite a request to do so. |
M. Powell |
4/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1697 |
State v. McCullough |
CA2013-07-021 |
Motion
To Suppress; Stop of Vehicle; Traffic Violation; Canine Sniff;
Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion of Drug Activity Not Require; No
Impermissible Expansion of the Stop; Inevitable-Discovery Doctrine;
Probable Cause; The trial court did not err by denying appellant's
motion to suppress where the initial stop of her vehicle was supported
by probable cause after officers observed her vehicle traveling at a
speed above the posted speed limit. This is true even though the
officers may have had an ulterior motive for making the stop, such as
their suspicion that she was engaged in more serious criminal drug
activity. The trial court also did not err by denying appellant's
motion to suppress as the officers were not required to have a
reasonable and articulable suspicion of drug activity before conducting a
canine sniff of her vehicle. Moreover, appellant's subsequent
detention during which a canine sniff of her vehicle was conducted did
not impermissibly extend her detention as the canine sniff was done
within mere minutes after the officers stopped her vehicle. Finally,
the trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress by
finding the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied. Although appellant
may have been subject to an unconstitutional search of her person once
transported to jail, the officers were in the process of typing up a
search warrant, which, based on the facts and circumstances of the case,
provided more than enough evidence to support a probable cause finding
to issue a search warrant. |
S. Powell |
4/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1696 |
State v. Alltop |
CA2013-06-018 |
Defendant-appellant
appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery, arguing that the trial
court improperly denied both his motion for an appropriation of funds
for a DNA/Forensics expert, and his motion to suppress DNA evidence
collected from his boots without a warrant. The trial court's denial of
appellant's motion for an appropriation of funds for a DNA/Forensics
expert was not an abuse of discretion because appellant failed to make a
particularized showing that (1) there was a reasonable probability that
the requested expert would aid in his defense, and (2) the denial of
the requested assistance would result in an unfair trial. The trial
court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress the evidence
obtained as a result of the DNA testing of his boots because the
evidence was collected through a search incident to arrest. A "search
incident to arrest" is a well-established exception to the general rule
against warrantless searches that allows arresting officers to search
both an arrestee's person and the area within the arrestee's immediate
control. |
M. Powell |
4/21/2014 |
2014-Ohio-1695 |