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 88 rows. Rows per page: 
123456789
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Ervin 2018-CA-17Defendant-appellant’s counsel filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). A thorough review of the record reveals no arguably meritorious appellate issues. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 3/22/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-1020
State v. Saylor 2018-CA-14Appellant, following negotiations, pleaded guilty to several drug related offenses. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of twelve and one-half years in prison, with the sentence including the imposition of consecutive service. The trial court did not consider improper sentencing factors. Further, the consecutive sentences are not contrary to law, nor can we conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.)TuckerChampaign 3/22/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-1025
State v. Gibson 2018-CA-36Trial court did not err in convicting defendant of obstructing official business after guilty verdict based on evidence that defendant both reentered his residence after being told by police not to do so and verbally interfered with officers’ attempts to investigate a report of a person calling for help inside defendant’s residence. Trial court acted within its discretion in giving OJI jury instruction, in declining to give additional instructions proposed by defendant, and in its response to a jury question. Cumulative effect of other alleged mistakes did not amount to constitutional deprivation. Judgment affirmed, and matter remanded for corrective nunc pro tunc judgment entry.FroelichClark 3/22/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-1022
State v. Vaughn 2018-CA-31The trial court did not err by admitting a computerized criminal history (CCH) printout under the public-records hearsay exception in Evid.R. 803(8). Nor did the trial court err by overruling Appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal of the weapons under disability charge. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for having weapons under disability. The CCH printout was competent, credible evidence that Appellant had a prior felony conviction for drug trafficking. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for one count of aggravated possession of drugs where an expert testified that she had relied on the imprint and appearance of a particular set of pills, as well as testing to confirm the substances contained therein. However, the evidence was not sufficient with respect to a second set of pills, where the expert testified that the appearance and imprint of the pills suggested a particular drug, but the pills were not tested to confirm their content, and the expert testified that she “had no idea for sure” what was in those pills. Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new judgment entry.HallClark 3/22/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-1026
Johnson v. Johnson 2018-CA-36Trial court erred in a few discrete respects as to the final judgment regarding the parties’ divorce. The trial court erred by failing to explain why it did not treat husband’s claimed inheritance from an aunt as his separate property rather than as marital property, and by failing to classify wife’s 2016 tax refund as a marital asset and husband’s 2016 tax debt as a marital liability. In addition, the trial court made a mathematical error in calculating husband’s expected future income, and does not appear to have credited husband for a claimed prior payment toward wife’s attorney fees. Judgment reversed and matter remanded as to those limited issues; judgment affirmed in all other respects.FroelichGreene 3/22/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-1024
In re J.S. 28190The juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody to MCCS was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Father failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child’s removal from the home, he was unable to provide an adequate and permanent home for the child, and Father’s parental rights had been previously terminated and he failed to provide evidence that, notwithstanding the prior termination, he could provide a legally secure permanent placement for the child. Granting permanent custody to MCCS was in the child’s best interest. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 3/22/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-1023
Esrati v. Dayton City Comm. 28062Appellant failed to provide evidence that a school facilities task force, formed to gather financial information and assist a public school board in making financial decisions, engaged in deliberations as opposed to information gathering when it participated in a private tour of a school. As a result, the alleged lack of an open meeting did not invalidate a resolution, rule, or formal action of the school board under R.C. 121.22(H). Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-1021
State v. Cottrell 28089The trial court erred by suppressing Appellant’s incriminating statements and physical evidence on the basis that the statements were involuntary. The evidence does not support finding that the detective made false promises or that the statements were involuntary. Nothing the detective said overbore Appellant’s will to resist and critically impaired his capacity for self-determination. The physical evidence was not obtained after custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. Cottrell was not in custody, so Miranda warnings were not necessary. Reversed and remanded. (Donovan, J., dissenting.)HallMontgomery 3/15/2019 3/15/2019 2019-Ohio-889
In re C.B. 28113Trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing grandmother’s motion for legal custody and granting legal custody to a non-relative. Magistrate did not err in failing to continue the hearing, sua sponte, due to grandmother’s absence. Record does not support grandmother’s contention that her attorney, who attended the hearing, lacked authority to move to withdraw grandmother’s motion for legal custody; no written motion was required. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 3/15/2019 3/15/2019 2019-Ohio-890
State v. Mabberly 27729Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and, thus, the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. As such, trial counsel’s apparent failure to make a Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal was of no consequence. Further, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not improperly refer to the charges against Appellant in the jury instructions so that Appellant’s guilt was implied. With regard to the State’s cross-assignment of error, we agree with the State that the trial court abused its discretion by giving the limits on human memory instruction delivered to the jury. However, this error does not entitle the State to any relief in this case. Judgment affirmed. (Welbaum, P.J., concurring.)TuckerMontgomery 3/15/2019 3/15/2019 2019-Ohio-891
123456789