The Twelfth District held that grand theft of a motor vehicle and attempted grand theft of a firearm found in the vehicle’s glove box are not allied offenses requiring merger, because the defendant’s act of removing the gun from the car and keeping it in her bedroom reflected a separate animus.
The Twelfth District affirmed a murder conviction arising from a shooting during a domestic dispute, holding that the trial court properly admitted the defendant’s prior violent acts as character evidence under Evid.R. 404(A) and that the State’s grant of immunity to a key witness did not render her testimony unreliable.
The Eleventh District affirmed an OVI conviction following a guilty plea, holding that Crim.R. 11(E) for petty offenses requires only that the defendant be told a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt, not the full constitutional rights colloquy required for serious offenses.
The Sixth District affirmed a speeding conviction where the pro se defendant failed to serve formal discovery on the prosecutor, holding that public records requests to the sheriff’s office do not satisfy Crim.R. 16 discovery obligations, even when a judge ordered the State to comply.
The Sixth District affirmed a 13-to-16.5-year prison sentence for attempted RICO, burglary, and related offenses, holding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to allocution by refusing a mid-hearing request to consult with counsel and that burglary and attempted grand theft of a motor vehicle are not allied offenses of similar import.
The Fifth District affirmed convictions for gross sexual imposition against a minor, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling a child victim incompetent to testify without an in-person hearing and that the Confrontation Clause does not guarantee the right to comment on a witness’s absence at trial.
The Ninth District partially reversed a criminal trespass conviction, holding that a represented defendant’s pro se motions did not toll the statutory speedy trial clock and remanding for a determination of whether the State violated the 45-day time limit.
The Ninth District affirmed a domestic violence conviction, holding that the trial court’s failure to advise the defendant of his right to a jury trial and right to remain silent at arraignment was not prejudicial where the defendant later knowingly waived a jury trial through written motion.
The Ninth District affirmed the conviction of a commercial driver for running a red light, holding that the necessity defense was available but that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that stopping would have created a greater danger.
The Ninth District reversed the suppression of OVI evidence, holding that a state trooper’s observations of slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol during a valid traffic stop gave rise to reasonable suspicion to expand the stop into an OVI investigation.