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

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
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 93 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Pitts C-150766APPELLATE REVIEW: Appellant's appeal from the overruling of his postconviction motion to correct the postrelease-control portion of his sentences is subject to dismissal as moot, because the court of appeals cannot provide appellant with any meaningful relief after the common pleas court entered judgment correcting postrelease control and that judgment was affirmed on appeal.MillerHamilton 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7623
In re A.M. C-160532, C-160533DELINQUENCY - SENTENCING - CONFINEMENT CREDIT: The juvenile court erred by denying the juvenile defendant's motions to include as confinement credit under R.C. 2152.18(B) time served at the Abraxas Ohio Residential Treatment Center without taking any evidence or making any findings regarding the nature of the Abraxas facility or the juvenile's time at Abraxas under the guidelines set forth in In re D.P., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140518, 2014-Ohio-5414.DetersHamilton 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7624
State v. Summerlin C-160539COUNSEL - EVIDENCE - JURY INSTRUCTIONS - FLIGHT - HEARSAY - IMPEACHMENT - WITNESS: The decision whether to appoint substitute counsel rests within the sound discretion of the trial court; in the exercise of its discretion the trial court is required to make an inquiry into defendant's request, including whether the motion was timely and whether there had been a complete breakdown in communication between defendant and his counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's ill-timed, successive request for substitute counsel on the grounds that counsel had failed to share all discovery with defendant when, well before the request, the court had entertained an identical oral motion, had carefully explained the limitation placed on counsel by Crim.R. 16(C), and had appointed new counsel to represent defendant, and when the motion was renewed held an inquiry at which current appointed counsel explained that he had provided defendant with all discovery material that had not been designated "counsel only" under Crim.R. 16(C), had met with defendant 15 times before trial and had explained to him the limitations placed on them by the discovery rules, had discussed at length their trial strategy and the plea negotiation, and had concluded that the attorney-client relationship had not broken down. Evid.R. 806(A) provides that when a hearsay statement has been admitted into evidence, "the credibility of the declarant may be attacked * * * by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if declarant had testified as a witness," and Evid.R. 806(C) permits the use of Evid.R. 609 prior-conviction records to impeach a hearsay declarant even if that declarant does not testify. Evidence of flight is admissible to show consciousness of guilt, and a jury instruction on flight is proper if the record contains sufficient evidence to support the charge as long as the instruction does not raise a presumption of guilt or shift the burden of proof to defendant to explain his flight. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on flight as consciousness of guilt where the state's evidence showed that defendant, knowing that the police would soon arrive, had immediately left the scene of shootings even though his victims lay seriously wounded, that he had removed himself from the city following the shootings, that he had made statements that he knew that he was "hot," acknowledging that the police were looking for him, and that he or his associates had offered one shooting victim money not to testify at trial. The trial court did not abuse its sound discretion over the admission or exclusion of relevant evidence when it admitted into evidence two prejudicial photographs taken from defendant's Facebook profile page, one photo showing defendant with a gun in his waistband, and the other photo showing defendant with another perpetrator of a shooting, each with a gun.CunninghamHamilton 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7625
State v. Schwarm C-160677SENTENCING ? RULE OF LENITY - COMPETENCY: Under the rule of lenity, where the indictment alleged that defendant had committed offenses during a range of time that encompassed pre-Senate Bill 2 and post-Senate Bill 2 time periods, defendant was entitled to be sentenced under the law in effect post-Senate Bill 2, where the maximum sentence that could have been imposed for each rape offense was ten years, as opposed to the 11 years that could have been imposed if the offenses had been committed prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 2. Where the trial court was required to make findings in support of consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing, and where the appellate court cannot discern from the record that the trial court engaged in the required analysis, the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was erroneous. Where the record does not contain evidence to create a sufficient doubt that defendant was incompetent, the trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte order that defendant undergo a competency evaluation.MyersHamilton 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7626
LV Reis, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision C-160732PROCEDURE/RULES - CIV.R. 53 - CORPORATIONS - STANDING: The trial court did not err in granting a motion to strike the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate's decision where they were not filed within 14 days from the date the magistrate issued his decision as required by Civ.R. 53 even though the local rule provides for a 17-day time period based on an overruled appellate court opinion. The trial court did not err in determining that the plaintiff had no standing to appeal an administrative decision to the court of common pleas because it was a foreign corporation that was not licensed in Ohio prior to initiating the action.DetersHamilton 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7627
First Fin. Bank, N.A. v. Mendenhall C-160832FORECLOSURE - EVIDENCE: In a residential foreclosure action, the mortgagee is not required to submit an account history into evidence where the mortgagor has admitted to the amount of principal and interest due.MillerHamilton 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7628
State v. Kirkpatrick C-160880, C-160881, C160882OVI - AUTOS/CRIMINAL - REASONABLE SUSPICION - R.C. 4511.36(A)(2): In an OVI prosecution, the trial court properly overruled the defendant's motion to suppress evidence stemming from a traffic stop, which the defendant alleged had not been supported by reasonable suspicion: although the defendant-driver's conduct in turning into the outside, right lane, instead of the inside, left lane did not violate R.C. 4511.36(A)(2), the basis for the police officer's traffic stop, the police officer made a reasonable mistake of law in concluding that the defendant had violated the statute based upon dicta from the previous opinion of this court in State v. Stadelmann, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130138, 2013-Ohio-5035. Because the clear and unambiguous language of R.C. 4511.36(A)(2) does not prohibit a driver from turning into the outside, right lane, instead of the inside, left lane, the defendant's conviction under R.C. 4511.36(A)(2) constitutes plain error.DetersHamilton 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7629
Anglin v. Donohoo C-160913APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - JURISDICTION - FINAL ORDER - CIV.R. 27: The partial denial of a motion to dismiss a petition for discovery under Civ.R. 27 was not a final appealable order, because it did not determine the action and prevent a judgment.MillerHamilton 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7630
Cincinnati v. Harrison C-160581APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - JURISDICTION - LAW OF THE CASE: Because an appellate court's jurisdiction is limited to review of final judgments or orders, it must determine its own jurisdiction to proceed before reaching the merits of any appeal; when the record certified for review does not contain a final appealable order, the court must dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A reviewing court's decision in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in that case, and an inferior court has no discretion to disregard the mandate of the superior court. Where neither party sought review, by means of an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, of the appellate court's decision that certain orders not touching immunity in the trial court's prior judgment were not final and that only after the trial court had resolved those matters and had entered a final judgment would they be ready for appellate review, and where neither party added evidentiary material to the record after remand to the trial court, the trial court's decision declining to change or reconsider those orders was contrary to the law of the case and was not final. [But see DISSENT: The trial court's attempt on remand to comply with the appellate court's instructions by stating in its entry that it "declines to change or reconsider" its decisions on certain claims and that it is entering final judgment was sufficient to constitute a final appealable order.]CunninghamHamilton 9/13/2017 9/13/2017 2017-Ohio-7580
State v. Arszman C-160689SEX OFFENSES - REGISTRATION: Where defendant, after his conviction for gross sexual imposition, was improperly classified as a Tier II sex offender, and the appellate court reversed the Tier II classification and remanded the cause for the trial court to correct the classification to Tier I, but the trial court did not carry out the remand order before defendant was released from his prison sentence, and where, after his release from prison, defendant filed a motion for relief from his duty to register as a sex offender and to vacate his sex-offender classification, the trial court's judgment overruling defendant's motion must be affirmed because there is no order in place requiring defendant to register as a sex offender and no classification to vacate, and the cause must be remanded for the trial court to consider whether it has authority to notify defendant of and impose upon him Tier I sex-offender registration requirements after he has been released from his term of imprisonment.CunninghamHamilton 9/13/2017 9/13/2017 2017-Ohio-7581