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.
Case State v. Darren Scott Day II, 2026-Ohio-1999 Court Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District Judge ROBERT G. HANSEMAN
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.
The Second District affirmed a 48-month aggregate prison sentence for gross sexual imposition and attempted corrupting another with drugs, holding the trial court did not err in imposing prison despite the victim, family, and psychosexual evaluator all recommending treatment.
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 First District affirmed a $387 restitution order in a criminal damaging case where the crime victim, invoking Marsy’s Law rights, challenged the amount but failed to file a trial transcript, requiring the court to presume regularity of the proceedings.
The Eighth District reversed the juvenile court’s denial of mandatory bindover, holding that a juvenile’s own recorded confession admitting he ‘put a gun on’ a victim established probable cause for the firearm display element without requiring victim testimony.
The Eighth District affirmed individual maximum sentences for a jewelry store burglary but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make the disproportionality finding required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
The Eighth District reversed the dismissal of a felony OVI enhancement, holding that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that a prior uncounseled conviction was constitutionally infirm where signed written waivers documented a knowing waiver of counsel.
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 Tenth District reversed a community-control sanction imposed on a defendant who vandalized the Brutus Buckeye statue, finding the trial court failed to hold the required violation hearings and denied the defendant his right to allocution.
The Ninth District reversed a contempt finding, holding that community control violations in misdemeanor cases cannot be prosecuted as criminal contempt under R.C. 2929.25 and that the trial court lacked authority after community control expired.
The Ninth District reversed a zoning conviction because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry before accepting the defendant’s waiver of counsel, holding that the brief colloquy was insufficient given the complexity of the zoning regulatory scheme.
The Ninth District upheld an Alford plea but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make any findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences.
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.