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 201 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Newell 106584Crim.R. 16(B) — discovery; Brady violation; abuse of discretion; polygraph examination; DNA evidence; motion for mistrial; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) — consecutive sentences; manifest weight; ineffective assistance of counsel; cumulative error doctrine. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for mistrial or for failing to sanction appellee for alleged misconduct. There was no Brady violation where evidence of the polygraph test was disclosed during trial and appellant failed to show that the evidence was material to a finding of guilt or that it would have caused a different outcome. The information about the visit to the crime scene also failed to meet the criteria for a Brady violation. The failure to test appellant’s DNA standard did not rise to the level of a Brady violation where there was no other DNA evidence recovered from the crime scene to compare to; and appellant failed to provide support for his claims of police misconduct. The trial court made the necessary findings and incorporated those findings into the sentencing journal entry. Appellant provided no detailed argument or citations to support his contention that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault, kidnapping, and one- and three-year firearm and criminal gang activity counts; sufficient evidence was presented to support conviction on all other counts, and the evidence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant failed to show that his trial counsel’s representation fell below a reasonable standard of performance. The doctrine of cumulative error does not apply here where appellant’s other assignments of error are meritless.JonesCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-976
Guy v. Shorey 106923Separation agreement; divorce decree; contempt; purge. Court that found a contemnor in violation of obligations contained in separation agreement incorporated into divorce decree did not err by altering the other party’s rights in the separation agreement as condition for the contemnor to purge contempt.HandworkCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-977
State v. Aidara 106971Motion for mistrial; Crim.R. 43(A) — ex parte communication; transcript; witness testimony. It was error where the trial court communicated with the jury outside the presence of appellant. It was an abuse of discretion where the trial court provided the trial transcript to the jury during deliberations.JonesCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-978
State v. Doyle 107001Appeal No. 107001 — State of Ohio v. Cardell Doyle Unduly suggestive identification; Evid.R. 901; authentication; manifest weight of the evidence; speedy trial; void sentence. The trial court did not rely on what was deemed an unduly suggestive in-court identification during a bench trial. Further, the evidence admitted at trial was properly authenticated and identified in the record and the conviction is not against the weight of the evidence. The sentence imposed for a firearm specification attendant to a merged offense is void.S. GallagherCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-979
State v. Banks 107048Modification of sentence; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) — consecutive sentences. There is no necessity for modification of appellant’s sentence. Although the trial court made a verbal miscalculation of appellant’s sentence during the sentencing hearing, the correct sentence was entered on the record and in the court’s sentencing entry. There was no retaliation against appellant where he was resentenced on remand. The trial court complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) where it recited its findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporated those finding in the sentencing judgment entry. Additionally, appellant’s sentence was less than the prior sentence.JonesCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-980
State v. Riley 107073Murder; felonious assault, attempted murder; discharge of a firearm on or near premises; improperly handling firearms of a motor vehicle; having a weapon while under disability; firearm specifications; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; motion to strike. Convictions associated with drive by shooting supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence when defendant’s action was caught on video surveillance cameras. BlackmonCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-981
State v. Whitfield 107089Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); failure to advise of postrelease control. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) provides in pertinent part that the court shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved. The requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) are nonconstitutional, and thus, this court reviews “to ensure substantial compliance” with this rule. Under this standard, a slight deviation from the text of the rule is permissible; so long as the totality of the circumstances indicates that “the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving.” When the trial court does not “substantially comply” with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), a reviewing court must then determine whether the trial court partially complied or failed to comply with this rule. If the trial judge partially complied, e.g., by mentioning mandatory postrelease control without explaining it, the plea may be vacated only if the defendant demonstrates a prejudicial effect. As repeatedly recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court, a defendant must show prejudice before a plea will be vacated for a trial court’s error involving Crim.R. 11(C) procedure when nonconstitutional aspects of the colloquy are at issue. The test for prejudicial effect is whether the plea would have otherwise been made. Whitfield was sentenced on offenses committed after the effective date of Senate Bill 2; he was subject to postrelease control. The trial court made no mention of postrelease control at the plea hearing. Because the trial court completely failed to comply, the plea must be vacated, and a showing of prejudice is not required. As a result of the trial court’s complete failure to properly advise and impose upon Whitfield the requisite period of postrelease control, his pleas must be vacated.KilbaneCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-982
Estate of Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp. 107108107108 Class action, abuse of discretion, Civ.R. 23, mandate rule, law of the case doctrine, predominance, standing, injury, breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court was not “mandated” to only allow plaintiffs “to amend their class definition to include only those who overpaid their taxes[.]” The trial court erred in certifying plaintiffs’ subclass because the issue of how the defendants’ alleged misstatement affected each individual’s tax liability predominates over questions common to the subclass members. The trial court erred in certifying plaintiffs’ class because the class’s alleged informational injury is not sufficient to confer standing and warrant class certification. BoyleCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-983
Vail v. String 107112Motion to show cause; separation agreement; obligation to pay college expenses; integration clause; settlement agreement; contract interpretation; ambiguity; integration; contempt; prejudgment interest; R.C. 1343.03(A); due and payable; attorney fees; R.C. 3109.05(C); R.C. 3105.73(B). Trial court did not err in determining that subsequent settlement agreement was not intended to abrogate father’s obligation to share in the costs of his daughter’s college education set forth in separation agreement incorporated in divorce decree. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold father in contempt for failing to pay his share of his daughter’s college expenses where although father was aware his daughter was attending college, there was no evidence he was informed of the amount of the expenses he was obligated to pay. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that father’s obligation to pay his share of daughter’s college expenses became “due and payable” upon her graduation for purposes of prejudgment interest award under R.C. 1343.03(A). Mother was not entitled to recover her attorney fees under R.C. 3109.05(C) and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the parties’ mutual requests for attorney fees and legal expenses under R.C. 3105.73(B) where both parties were responsible for the voluminous, protracted litigation in the case. E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-984
State v. Cotto 107159Mandatory fine; R.C. 2929.18(B); R.C. 2929.19; drug trafficking; indigent; motion to waive. The imposition of a mandatory fine was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the court considered the defendant’s future ability to pay the fine and concluded that the defendant was not indigent and unable to pay the fine.HeadenCuyahoga 3/21/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-985