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 102 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Mosley C-140633SEX OFFENSES-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL: The trial court did not err in dismissing the indictment against defendant for failing to provide notice of an address change, because defendant's initial classification as a sexually oriented offender violated his right to due process: requiring defendant to register as a sexually oriented offender for abduction with no sexual motivation is not rationally related to the stated legislative intent of Ohio's Megan's Law to protect the public from sex offenders, and defendant is not subject to the child-victim-oriented-offender law, because he was not incarcerated on its effective date and did not have a lawful duty to register when the law became effective. [But see DISSENT: The legislature constitutionally classified defendant as a child-victim offender, and the state may prosecute him for a violation of that duty to register; further, a rational basis supports defendant's previous classification as a sexually oriented offender.]FischerHamilton 9/4/2015 9/4/2015 2015-Ohio-3597
State v. King C-140534, C-140535SEX OFFENSES - PLEAS - PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court erred in overruling defendant's postsentence motions to withdraw his guilty pleas to two separate counts of failing to verify his address, because defendant had no duty to register as a sex offender in Ohio when he had committed his sex offense in Michigan, but had no duty to register in that state, and thus defendant demonstrated manifest injustice.FischerHamilton 9/2/2015 9/2/2015 2015-Ohio-3565
State v. Griffin C-140591SEARCH & SEIZURE - SENTENCING - R.C. 2941.25: The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant where, under the totality of the circumstances, the supporting affidavit by an experienced drug investigator demonstrated probable cause that contraband or evidence of marijuana cultivation would be found in the residence and in a vehicle parked at the residence: the affiant described an anonymous tip that there was a large "marijuana grow" in the house, and a trash pull that revealed marijuana plant trimmings, which were indicative of the cultivation of marijuana, as well as mail addressed to the owner of the vehicle that was parked at the residence. Where the search warrant authorized the search of the residence and any vehicles registered to a certain person, police officers were justified in seizing a vehicle registered to that person and detaining its driver. The trial court erred by imposing sentences for both illegal cultivation of marijuana and possession of marijuana, because the offenses were allied offenses of similar import.HendonHamilton 9/2/2015 9/2/2015 2015-Ohio-3566
In re M.M. C-140628, C-140629, C-140630, C140631SEARCH AND SEIZURE - CCW - EVIDENCE - WEAPONS - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - DOUBLE JEOPARDY: The trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence, because the stop of the car was reasonable where police had an objectively reasonable basis for their belief that the car's cracked windshield rendered it unsafe. The state presented sufficient evidence that defendant had carried a concealed weapon, even though the gun was inoperable, because the gun had been designed as a weapon and could have been used as a bludgeon. The state presented sufficient evidence that the gun was concealed where the police officer saw the gun in defendant's waistband only after the car windows had been rolled down and defendant had shifted in the back seat. The defendant's delinquency adjudication for carrying a concealed weapon was not barred by double jeopardy, because the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's decision dismissing the carrying-a-concealed-weapon charge prior to the state filing objections was preliminary, and jeopardy did not attach until the court had completed its independent review and issued a decision.DeWineHamilton 8/28/2015 8/28/2015 2015-Ohio-3485
State v. Haynes C-140205SEARCH & SEIZURE: The trial court did not err in denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the defendant's person during a search incident to his lawful arrest: the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant where an undercover police officer had witnessed the defendant drive a car into a parking lot that was under surveillance following complaints for drug activity, had observed the defendant as he remained in the car with the engine running and acted as a lookout while the defendant's passenger left the car to engage in activity consistent with drug trafficking with the driver of a second car, and had then broadcast a description of those events to other officers, who followed and then stopped the defendant's car, and noticed on the defendant's side of the interior console a digital scale with residue on it.HendonHamilton 8/26/2015 8/26/2015 2015-Ohio-3432
State v. Ruff C-120533, C-120534R.C. 2941.25: Because the harm that resulted from each aggravated burglary was not separate and identifiable from the harm caused by each rape, the offenses as to each victim were of similar import. The trial court violated R.C. 2941.25 by failing to merge each of defendant's convictions for aggravated burglary under R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) with the corresponding rape offenses under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) where the state relied solely on the rape offenses to establish the physical-harm element of the aggravated burglaries, because the harm that resulted from the rape of each victim was the same harm that escalated each burglary to aggravated burglary. [But see DISSENT: The harms caused by the rapes were separate and identifiable from the harms caused by the "aggravating element" of the aggravated burglaries, and therefore, the crimes were not of similar import.]DeWineHamilton 8/21/2015 8/21/2015 2015-Ohio-3367
Reddy v. Reddy C-140609, C-140678DOMESTIC RELATIONS - DIVORCE AND DISSOLUTION -PROCEDURE/RULES - SPOUSAL SUPPORT - CHILD SUPPORT: The trial court did not err in ruling on wife's objections even though they were not timely filed, because husband did not bring the timeliness issue to the trial court's attention, and because under Civ.R. 53(D)(5), the trial court can extend the time to file objections "for good cause shown." The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding spousal support where it considered the statutory factors, and competent, credible evidence supported the award. The trial court did not err in enforcing a child-support order even though the court had not required that the support be paid through the Child Support Enforcement Agency, because the error rendered the judgment voidable, not void, and husband did not raise the issue in a direct appeal from the shared-parenting decree. While the trial court was incorrect when it stated that it could not modify child support on its own motion, its finding that a modification was not in the children's best interest was supported by competent, credible evidence.FischerHamilton 8/21/2015 8/21/2015 2015-Ohio-3368
Evans v. Quest Diagnostics C-140479SANCTIONS - PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court erred in considering a motion for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 where the motion was filed out of time and appellant had objected to the motion on timeliness grounds. The trial court erred when it awarded sanctions under Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51 without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.StautbergHamilton 8/19/2015 8/19/2015 2015-Ohio-3320
Shen v. Lam C-140607APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - COUNSEL - JURISDICTION/VENUE - PROCEDURE/RULES: An order striking an attorney's notice of appearance is a final appealable order. The trial court did not err when it struck the notice of appearance filed by one of defendant's counsel, because there was no due-process violation where defendant raised the issue of the notice of appearance and did not object to the court's consideration of the matter. The trial court's reference to counsel's website in striking counsel's notice of appearance did not rise to the level of plain error. The trial court's order striking counsel's notice of appearance was not an abuse of discretion where the case had been pending for over two years when counsel filed the notice to appear as co-counsel, the case did not fall within counsel's self-described expertise, and the allegation that counsel was hired in an attempt to force the trial judge to recuse herself was uncontroverted. [See CONCURRENCE: The trial judge had the authority to regulate the proceedings in her courtroom.]DeWineHamilton 8/19/2015 8/19/2015 2015-Ohio-3321
State v. Bennett C-140507, C-140508APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL - JURISDICTION/VENUE - EVIDENCE: The trial court did not err in convicting defendant of solicitation where the evidence showed that the defendant approached an undercover officer posing as a prostitute and asked the officer if she was "working," stated that he was looking for a "regular," indicated that he was interested in engaging in sexual activities with the officer, asked the officer what she charged, and informed her that he was not expecting any "freebies." Under R.C. 2505.02, a criminal judgment is a final appealable order when the judgment entry sets forth (1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the sentence, (3) the judge's signature, and (4) the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142,  14. Because costs are not punishment or a "sanction" as defined by R.C. 2929.01(DD), a judgment entry that orders the payment of costs, only, does not set forth a sentence, and therefore, does not constitute a final appealable order. Defendant's appeal from the trial court's judgment, finding him guilty of loitering to engage in solicitation and imposing only costs, must be dismissed: the judgment does not constitute a final appealable order, because it does not set forth a "sentence" as that term has been described by the legislature.StautbergHamilton 8/14/2015 8/14/2015 2015-Ohio-3246
12345678910...>>