Deborah L. Cook

In State v. Noling, Tyrone Noling appealed his convictions for two counts of aggravated murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary, along with his death sentence, stemming from the 1990 shooting deaths of an elderly couple during a home invasion and robbery in Portage County, Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, finding that the evidence presented at trial, including testimony from accomplices and forensic analysis linking the .25 caliber weapon to the crime scene, sufficiently supported the jury's findings of guilt. The court rejected multiple propositions of law challenging evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sentencing procedures, and constitutional claims under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, concluding that no reversible error occurred in the trial or appellate review.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gutmann v. Feldman, plaintiffs alleged that defendants induced them to invest in nonexistent business opportunities and sought damages under Ohio securities law for the resulting losses. The U.S. District Court certified the question of whether an oral contract can qualify as a 'security' under R.C. 1707.01(B). The Ohio Supreme Court answered no, holding that the statutory definition begins with 'any certificate or instrument' and lists specific written examples, indicating that securities must take written form. The court reasoned that the General Assembly's selective use of 'written' modifiers for certain items, combined with the ordinary meaning of the opening language, excludes purely oral agreements from the definition.

business & regulatory

In State v. Gross, the defendant was convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and weapons charges after eyewitnesses, including juveniles on a paper route, identified him as the person who fatally shot Muskingum County Deputy Sheriff Michael Lutz during a break-in at a gas station in 1994. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible errors in the guilt phase. However, the court vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing on the aggravated murder conviction, holding that reversible error occurred when an alternate juror participated in deliberations over objection, resulting in an adverse outcome that the state did not prove harmless and that the trial court did not cure, in violation of Crim.R. 24(F). The decision focused on the procedural impact of the alternate juror's involvement rather than the underlying facts of the crime.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Walls, the defendant was convicted of aggravated murder for a 1985 killing committed when he was 15 years old, after being indicted in 1998 as an adult under 1997 versions of Ohio's juvenile statutes that eliminated the need for juvenile court bindover. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims that applying the later statutes constituted an unconstitutional retroactive application of law or violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and due process. The court reasoned that the statutes were remedial rather than substantive because they affected only the forum and procedures for prosecution once the defendant was apprehended as an adult, without altering any vested rights from the time of the offense, and that preindictment delay did not prejudice the defense in a manner warranting dismissal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a 1996 fireworks store fire that killed nine people and injured others, after which survivors sued the Ohio Department of Commerce's Division of State Fire Marshal in the Court of Claims alleging negligent inspections of the store's disabled sprinkler system and safety compliance during mandatory licensing and seasonal checks. The central legal issue was whether the state could invoke the public-duty rule as a defense to bar liability for such inspections. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the public-duty rule is incompatible with R.C. 2743.02(A)(1), which requires the state's liability in the Court of Claims to be determined in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties. Accordingly, courts must apply conventional tort principles to assess the existence of a legal duty in negligence claims against the state, rather than the public-duty rule, and the court overruled prior inconsistent decisions to that extent.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an employee, Herb Wiles, who took unpaid leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to care for his injured father and was later demoted, had his pay cut, and was transferred to another store upon return. Wiles sued his employer under Ohio common law for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, citing the FMLA but not pursuing remedies under the Act itself. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the state does not recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge based solely on a violation of the FMLA. The court reasoned that the FMLA already provides specific remedies for violations, making an additional common-law claim unnecessary to vindicate the statute's public policy goals. The lower courts' grant of summary judgment to the employer was affirmed.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In these consolidated cases, defendants Bush and Northern each filed postsentence motions under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw their guilty pleas years after sentencing, citing errors or breaches related to their pleas and sentences. Lower courts treated the motions as untimely postconviction petitions under R.C. 2953.21 and 2953.23 and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction. The Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 2953.21 and 2953.23 do not apply to Crim.R. 32.1 motions because the latter are filed directly in the underlying criminal case to withdraw a plea rather than as collateral attacks on the conviction. The court reasoned that the two remedies exist independently, with Crim.R. 32.1 lacking a statutory time limit though undue delay may affect credibility. The judgments were reversed and the cases remanded.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned attorney Debra J. Dixon's representation of a client in probate and estate matters, during which she committed fifteen violations of the Disciplinary Rules. These included neglecting the matter despite lacking competence, failing to properly account for and safeguard fiduciary funds, commingling and misappropriating over $250,000 in client assets for personal use, making improper transfers, attempting to charge an excessive fee, and initially failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. The Board of Commissioners recommended an indefinite suspension, but the Supreme Court of Ohio ordered permanent disbarment. The court reasoned that the extensive misconduct involving dishonesty and misappropriation, combined with insufficient mitigation and an inadequate acknowledgment of the wrongdoing, required the strictest sanction to protect the public and maintain confidence in the judicial system.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Keith LaMar, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, who was convicted of aggravated murder for killing five fellow inmates during the 1993 Lucasville prison riot by leading a group that beat suspected informants to death. The trial court sentenced him to death for four of the murders. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, finding that the evidence supported the jury's findings of guilt and that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors.

criminal law

The case concerned whether Ohio Revised Code 2907.07(B), which criminalized soliciting a person of the same sex for sexual activity when the solicitor knows or is reckless about the solicitation being offensive, violated equal protection under the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. Defendant Thompson was convicted under the statute after soliciting a male jogger and challenged the law on equal-protection grounds, arguing it singled out same-sex solicitations. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the statute is facially invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, reversing the conviction. The lead opinion reasoned that the provision operates as an impermissible content-based restriction on speech; a concurrence added that the classification between homosexual and heterosexual solicitations lacks a rational basis. The court thereby overruled its prior precedent upholding the statute.

criminal lawfree speechcivil rights

The case involved Washington Township trustees seeking an injunction to halt construction of radio transmission towers by Citicasters, a broadcast radio station operator, on leased land, on the grounds that the project violated local zoning rules. Citicasters argued it was exempt from zoning under R.C. 519.211(A) because it qualified as a public utility, citing its FCC license and the public availability of its broadcasts. The trial court and appellate court both rejected this claim, ruling that the station was not a public utility. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a radio station does not qualify as a public utility under the statute when it shows only an FCC license and indiscriminate public access; additional factors such as providing an essential service with a public right to demand it are required under the court's multifactored test. The court therefore concluded the zoning exemption did not apply.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Sarcom, a computer hardware company, could claim the resale exception under R.C. 5739.01(E)(1) to avoid use tax on its purchases of temporary technician services from Corporate Staffing Resources, Inc. (CSR). Sarcom had used the CSR technicians to fulfill its customers' maintenance and repair contracts when its own staff was insufficient. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the exception did not apply, affirming the Tax Commissioner's denial of a refund. The court reasoned that Sarcom did not resell the benefit of the temporary services—the contribution of flexible labor—in the same form received, as its customers obtained the end result of repaired computers rather than the technicians' services themselves, consistent with the analysis in Bellemar Parts Industries, Inc. v. Tracy.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether the value of a rollover IRA funded by a decedent's employer-sponsored retirement plan qualified for an exemption from Ohio estate tax under R.C. 5731.09(A). The estate argued that the portion traceable to employer contributions remained exempt even after transfer to the IRA, while the Tax Commissioner maintained it was taxable once outside the original employee trust. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the exemption does not apply, requiring inclusion of the IRA's full value in the gross estate for tax purposes. The court reasoned that the statute exempts only payments attributable to employer contributions made directly to an employee's trust or fund, and that a rollover to an IRA to which the employer did not contribute falls outside this protection; ambiguities in the statute are construed against the exemption.

taxes

In State v. Barnes, the defendant was charged with murder and attempted murder after stabbing two men during a fight at a party and asserted self-defense. He sought to introduce evidence of the deceased victim's prior violent acts to prove the victim was the initial aggressor, but the trial court excluded it under the evidence rules; the court also instructed the jury on felonious assault as a lesser included offense of attempted murder without objection. The Ohio Supreme Court held that a defendant asserting self-defense cannot introduce specific instances of a victim's conduct to show the victim was the initial aggressor, interpreting Evid.R. 404(A) and 405 to require that such evidence meet a higher standard of proving an essential element of the defense, which it does not here. The court further found no plain error in the jury instruction on the lesser offense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against Ohio attorney John Main Kelley for multiple instances of professional misconduct. The relator charged that Kelley neglected client matters in a divorce proceeding, two guardianships, and an estate administration by failing to file documents, communicate with clients, handle assets or taxes, and transfer property, and that he did not cooperate with the disciplinary investigation by ignoring inquiries and a deposition alternative. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the board's findings of violations for neglect of entrusted matters, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice, and failure to cooperate. It imposed a two-year suspension with the second year stayed, subject to conditions including six hours of CLE in law office management, citing the absence of prior discipline and no dishonest motive as mitigating factors.

procedure

This case concerned a local school board's complaint to the Ohio Tax Commissioner under R.C. 5715.27(E) seeking to end a real property tax exemption for commercial property located in a Community Reinvestment Area, which had been granted under R.C. 3735.65 et seq. The Tax Commissioner and Board of Tax Appeals dismissed the complaint, concluding the commissioner lacked jurisdiction because the CRA statutes created a separate local process for exemptions and revocations. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that the general statutory authority in R.C. 5715.27(E) remains available because the CRA provisions do not expressly or necessarily displace it. The court emphasized that the commissioner retains power to review continued eligibility for tax exemptions absent clear legislative intent to the contrary.

taxespropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved disciplinary proceedings against Judge Patricia A. Cleary for her handling of the sentencing of a pregnant defendant, Yuriko Kawaguchi, who had pleaded guilty to felony forgery and requested probation or bond to obtain an abortion. The Ohio Supreme Court found that Cleary violated DR 1-102(A)(5) by engaging in a colloquy that offered a sentencing quid pro quo tied to her personal opposition to abortion, creating an appearance of unjudicial conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court adopted the board's findings and imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law, reasoning that an objective observer would view the judge's actions as undermining public esteem for the judicial office. A dissent argued the evidence did not establish bias or a violation warranting more than a reprimand.

abortioncriminal law

The case involved a defamation lawsuit filed by Isaac Wampler against Wallace Higgins after Higgins published a letter to the editor in the Circleville Herald criticizing Wampler's business practices and motives in raising rent on a local grocery store, which led to its closure. The Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether the state's constitutional protection for opinions, previously recognized for media defendants, extends to nonmedia individuals like Higgins. The court held that Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides a separate and independent guarantee of protection for opinions that applies to both media and nonmedia defendants, depending on the totality of the circumstances. Applying the test from Scott v. News-Herald and Vail v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., the court concluded that Higgins's statements were nonactionable expressions of opinion as a matter of law and affirmed the appellate court's judgment in his favor.

free speechtorts & liability

This case involved the construction of a will's residuary clause after the death of Frances P. Haines, where the clause directed distribution of the net proceeds to five named individuals 'equally share and share alike... or to the survivors thereof.' George Baker, one of the named beneficiaries, predeceased Haines, and his children claimed a share of the estate either under the will's language or Ohio's antilapse statute. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that only the four surviving named beneficiaries were entitled to equal shares of the residuary estate. The court reasoned that the will's unambiguous survivorship language manifested a clear intent to limit distribution to those among the listed beneficiaries who outlived the testator, thereby demonstrating a contrary intention that rendered the antilapse statute inapplicable.

family lawproperty

In State v. Edmondson, the defendant was convicted of theft by deception under R.C. 2913.02 after submitting false information about her employment status on applications for Aid to Dependent Children benefits and food stamps, which resulted in her receiving the maximum amounts over several years. The key issue was whether the value of the stolen property for grading the offense was the total benefits received or only the overpayment amount exceeding what she would have qualified for if truthful. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the full amount of benefits obtained following the deception constituted the theft value, reversing the trial court's reduction to lesser felony charges based on the overpayment calculation and affirming the court of appeals. The majority reasoned that the initial misrepresentation triggered eligibility for the benefits under the statute, making all subsequent payments attributable to the deception regardless of partial eligibility.

criminal law