The Tenth District affirmed the denial of a postconviction petition without a hearing where the petitioner failed to produce substantive evidence demonstrating that Blink home security camera recordings existed or were withheld by the state.
The Fifth District affirmed convictions for obstructing official business and assaulting a police dog where the defendant fled from deputies serving warrants, hid from a K-9 search, and kicked the dog when it found him.
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 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 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.
The First District affirmed a conviction for violating a civil stalking protection order where the defendant contacted the protected party through a fake Facebook account, holding that the victim’s identification of the account was sufficient evidence.
The Fifth District affirms that a proffer meeting constituted a plea discussion under Rule 402, limiting the State’s use of the defendant’s statement to impeachment only if he testifies inconsistently.
The Fifth District affirmed a felonious assault conviction arising from an attack at a juvenile correctional facility, holding that inconsistent verdicts between co-defendants do not invalidate a guilty verdict and that the evidence supported a finding of serious physical harm.
The Ninth District affirmed a murder conviction, holding that the defendant forfeited jury instruction challenges by failing to object and that Ohio’s self-defense presumption under R.C. 2901.05(B)(2) was unavailable because the victim had a right to be in the residence.
The Ninth District dismissed the State’s appeal of a trial court’s refusal to compel witness testimony, holding that R.C. 2945.44 requires full transactional immunity and that the State’s offer excluding murder was insufficient to compel testimony over a Fifth Amendment invocation.
The First District affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication for felonious assault, holding that FaceTime-based identification combined with social media confirmation was sufficient and that DYS commitment was appropriate for a first-time offender who fired a gun at a victim.
The First District affirmed an OVI conviction, holding that probable cause to arrest does not require completed standardized field sobriety tests when the totality of officer observations supports impairment.
The Fifth District affirmed sexual battery and strangulation convictions, finding that the victim’s testimony, corroborated by SANE nurse examination, supported the trial court’s credibility determination in a bench trial.
The Third District reversed eight of nine rape convictions involving a minor victim, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to distinguish each count as a separate act, while affirming convictions on one rape count and two gross sexual imposition counts.