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 77 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Butler CA2018-03-049Anders no error.Per CuriamButler 3/25/2019 3/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1045
State v. Gilmore CA2018-06-118Criminal law—Sentencing. The trial court did not err when it sentenced appellant to an eight-year mandatory prison term for the second-degree felony offense because the sentence was supported by the record and was not contrary to law. Furthermore, there was no error in the trial court's decision to run the sentences consecutively to one another because the court made the necessary statutory findings.RinglandButler 3/25/2019 3/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1046
State v. Hagan CA2018-07-136Statements made by the trial court regarding the various requirements and restrictions appellant faced as a Tier III sex offender were such that the trial court, at worst, substantially complied with the nonconstitutional provisions of Crim.R. 11(C) despite the trial court's failure to explicitly notify appellant that he would be subject to a mandatory community notification requirement. There was also no error in the trial court's sentencing decision where the trial court's statement that appellant held a "position of trust" was not based on an impermissible finding under R.C. 2929.12(B)(3) but merely a reference to appellant's relationship to the victim as permissible under R.C. 2929.12(B)(6).S. PowellButler 3/25/2019 3/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1047
State v. DeHart CA2018-06-060Appellant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel where filing a motion to suppress evidence and statements taken during the traffic stop during which appellant was a passenger would not have been successful.PiperWarren 3/25/2019 3/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1048
State v. B.J.T. CA2018-06-062Trial court did not err by denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel where he failed to show that he was entitled to any substantive grounds for relief. RinglandWarren 3/25/2019 3/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1049
State v. Lageson CA2018-05-054The state of Ohio appeals a decision granting intervention in lieu of conviction ("ILC") to a defendant who applied for ILC after a jury trial which resulted in a guilty verdict. The court erred in granting ILC where the ILC statute could not be reasonably interpreted to allow an offender to seek ILC after a jury trial, a verdict, and a finding of guilt by the court.RinglandWarren 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-919
State v. Howard CA2018-06-067Anders no error.Per CuriamWarren 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-920
State v. Tucker CA2017-12-172A defendant appeals his convictions for aggravated arson and felony murder, which arose from his participation in a scheme with a codefendant to set an arson fire at the codefendant's home for insurance money. A firefighter died while responding the fire. Substantial circumstantial evidence implicated the defendant as the arsonist and the greater weight of the evidence supported his convictions. The defendant failed to establish that his joint trial with his codefendant was manifestly prejudicial. The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a videotape depicting the state's theory of how the defendant gained access to the locked basement of the home where the evidence was relevant and the method substantially similar to what may have occurred. The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a lay witness' opinion testimony where the lay witness' testimony would be speculative. The state did not engage in misconduct where the prosecutor encouraged jurors to consider the passage of time during their deliberations. The passage of time is a constant and an everyday aspect of life, and does not call for the jurors to conduct improper experimentation.M. PowellButler 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-911
State v. Young CA2018-03-047Appellant's conviction for gross sexual imposition was supported by sufficient evidence, but the trial court erred by denying appellant leave to file his motion for new trial where appellant demonstrated, by clear and convincing proof, that he was unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for new trial based on an irregularity in the proceedings within the 14-day time period set forth in Crim.R. 33(B). HendricksonButler 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-912
State v. Gerdes CA2018-03-056Conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the jury believed evidence presented by the state that defendant caused or attempted to cause physical harm to the victim. RinglandButler 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-913
12345678