Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the full-text search.
Opinion Text Search:    What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Decided?
County:   What is Decided?
Case Number:   What is Case Number?
Author:   What is Decided?
Topics and Issues:   What is Decided?
WebCite No: -Ohio-   What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 438 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re A.T.V. 2013-CA-59Based on Appellant's failure to file a transcript or statement of proceedings in compliance with App.R. 9, regularity in the trial court's decision is presumed. In addition, no due process violation is apparent on the face of the record, as Appellant had notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to his motion for change of custody. Affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4782
State v. Breneman 2013-CA-27Defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine based on trace amounts found on a razor blade in his bedroom was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine based on trace amounts found on a crack pipe in the kitchen was based on sufficient evidence; however, the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence where there was evidence that several residents and visitors to the home used crack cocaine, but defendant did not. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a recording of a telephone call by defendant to his girlfriend from jail. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a photograph that included a portion of a court document in a prior criminal case involving defendant and showed the name of the trial judge as a prosecutor. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded.FroelichChampaign 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4783
State v. Collini 26587Defendant cannot appeal his sentence, where the sentence for each count was authorized by law, the aggregate sentence was within the range agreed upon by defendant and the State, and Defendant did not claim that the trial court failed to comply with a mandatory sentencing requirement. Even if we were to consider Defendant's argument, the record does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4784
State v. Dover 2013-CA-58Trial counsel's failure to request an instruction on the lesser-included offense of Robbery was a matter of trial strategy, and the likelihood of a different result had trial counsel requested the instruction was not so great as to lead to a conclusion that a manifest injustice occurred. Affirmed.FainClark 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4785
State v. Frazee 26699The trial court erred in suppressing heroin found inside Appellee's coat pocket because the heroin was lawfully discovered through a search incident to arrest, and, alternatively, would have been inevitably discovered during a customary inventory search at jail. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. (Froelich, P.J., concurs in judgment.) (Donovan, J., concurring).WelbaumMontgomery 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4786
State v. Hottenstein 2014-CA-113Trial court did not err in excluding testimony from former magistrate of the juvenile court. Defendant's conviction for falsification to obtain a concealed handgun license, in violation of R.C. 2921.13(A)(14), was based on insufficient evidence. The judgment entry in defendant's juvenile case indicated that he had been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing "drug abuse," which did not exist under R.C. Chapter 2925 when defendant allegedly committed the juvenile offense. Even if the adjudication for "drug abuse" were deemed a violation under R.C. Chapter 2925, the quantity of marijuana involved constituted only a minor misdemeanor, which does not preclude a concealed carry license. Judgment vacated.FroelichClark 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4787
State v. Maiolo 2015-CA-15The trial court erred by admitting testimony that Appellant's co-defendant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, the same charge for which Appellant was on trial. The co-defendant's case had previously been separately resolved and he was not called to testify. His plea was irrelevant to this defendant's guilt or innocence. A co-defendant's plea may be admitted 1) when the co-defendant testifies and the plea is admissible regarding credibility, 2) when the co-defendant is "conspicuously absent" (e.g. a plea during a joint trial) or 3) when the defense raises a trial strategy leaving an impression of unfairness (e.g. an "empty chair" defense). Even if admissible, a limiting instruction on the use of the plea should be given. In this case, with a surveillance video clearly revealing the defendant's identity during his extended use of a pry bar to force open the front door of an unoccupied house, the error was harmless. The trial court did not err by admitting surveillance video of Appellant, testimony identifying Appellant, a photograph of Appellant, or testimony of Appellant's prior acts. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, P.J., concurring).HallClark 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4788
State v. Myers 26161Since Appellant satisfied her misdemeanor sentence for telecommunications harassment and offered no evidence of collateral consequences, her appeal is moot and accordingly dismissed.DonovanMontgomery 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4789
New Lebanon v. Krahn 26659Appellees sought attorney fees for frivolous conduct after the Village of New Lebanon voluntarily dismissed its complaint against Appellees for malicious prosecution, and the trial court properly decided that the Village was not entitled to immunity. The trial court properly found that the Village engaged in frivolous conduct. The trial court properly adopted the magistrate's determination regarding the amount attorney fees. Judgment affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4791
VanHeulen v. VanHeulen 2015-CA-29Absent a hearing transcript, the appellant cannot demonstrate error in the trial court's modified child-support order. Appellant's additional arguments regarding the use of appellee's maiden name in court documents and any allegations regarding appellee's violation of the standard parenting agreement are not properly before this Court. Judgment affirmed.DonovanGreene 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4792