Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Allen
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-02-06 · cited 1×
The case involved defendant Darrel W. Allen, who was on bond with conditions including wearing a SCRAM ankle monitor for continuous alcohol monitoring. After a reported domestic dispute, police found that Allen had cut off and removed the monitor (which was later discovered damaged in his home along with an open can of alcohol), leading to his jury convictions for tampering with evidence (third-degree felony) and criminal damaging (second-degree misdemeanor). Allen appealed, arguing that the trial court should have merged the offenses for sentencing and that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the 24-month prison sentence, holding that sufficient evidence supported both convictions and that they did not merge because the offenses involved separate conduct and harms. The majority reasoned that cutting the monitor constituted tampering with evidence of a potential probation violation, while the dissent would have reversed the tampering conviction for lack of proof that Allen altered an existing piece of inculpatory evidence.
criminal lawprocedure
In re O.M.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-02-06 · cited 1×
The case involved appeals by Reagan M. (mother of O.M. and A.D.) and Cory D. (father of A.D.) challenging the Hancock County Juvenile Court’s adjudication of the two young children as neglected and dependent children under Ohio law, following a November 2021 domestic violence incident between the parents that led to police and child protective services involvement and temporary placement of the children with relatives. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments in full as to the adjudications and dismissed the appeals in part. The majority rejected the parents’ claims of procedural error under the juvenile and evidence rules, insufficient evidence, and lack of reasonable efforts by the agency, concluding that the record contained clear and convincing evidence of an environment adverse to the children’s welfare due to the parents’ ongoing physical altercations. A partial dissent would have reversed the dependency findings, arguing that the agency failed to prove any nexus between the domestic incidents and actual harm or risk to the children.
family lawprocedure
State v. Brown
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022-12-27 · cited 3×
In State v. Brown, defendant Tricia Brown was indicted on third-degree felony theft and grand theft of a firearm charges, entered a stipulation allowing polygraph results, then pleaded guilty to an amended fifth-degree felony theft count involving $1,000 to $7,499.99 in exchange for dismissal of the firearm count. The trial court imposed a four-year community control sentence that included 60 days in jail (with credit) and ordered her to pay $11,896.08 in restitution. Brown appealed, arguing the restitution exceeded the statutory maximum for her offense, that the sentence violated equal protection, that her counsel was ineffective for not objecting, and that the polygraph results were improperly admitted. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that restitution must be capped at the maximum value corresponding to the degree of the convicted theft offense under R.C. 2913.02(B)(2) and precedent, remanding for recalculation, while rejecting the remaining claims because the polygraph results were properly admitted at sentencing for impeachment under the parties’ stipulation after Brown denied taking the property.
criminal lawprocedurepropertycivil rights
West v. West
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022-12-19 · cited 1×
In West v. West, Joy West filed for divorce in 2018, alleging a common-law marriage with Thomas West since 1990 and seeking dissolution on grounds of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty. Thomas failed to file a timely answer to the complaint, resulting in the trial court deeming the allegations admitted under Civ.R. 8(D) and limiting his ability to contest the marriage's existence at later hearings, though Joy still had to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court found such a marriage existed, granted the divorce on the stated grounds with corroborating evidence like a medical report and domestic violence conviction, and ordered asset division and spousal support. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Thomas showed no excusable neglect to set aside the default, that the record supported the marriage finding, and that direct and corroborating evidence backed the divorce grounds under Civ.R. 75(M).
family lawprocedureproperty
In re G.Y.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022-12-19
In In re G.Y., the Mercer County Juvenile Court adjudicated a young child as abused based on injuries discovered in 2021 and placed him in the legal custody of his father after prior temporary placements with the paternal grandmother due to procedural delays in related cases involving the mother and her live-in partner. The mother appealed, arguing errors in the abuse finding, failure to dismiss the complaint, inadequate reasonable-efforts determinations, and improper custody award. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed both the adjudication and disposition, holding that competent evidence supported the trial court's conclusions that the child was abused, that placement outside the mother's home served the child's best interest, and that legal custody to the father was appropriate given safety concerns and the mother's circumstances.
family lawprocedure
Bloomfield v. Varner
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022-12-19
The Bloomfields sued the Varners for trespass and related claims, alleging that the Varners had no right to drive on Johnson Road in Johnson’s Subdivision to reach their horse barn. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Varners, and the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the Bloomfields did not own Johnson Road and that the 1962 deed language granting subdivision lot owners “the privilege of ingress and egress to the Little Auglaize River” on Johnson-owned land did not create a restriction barring others from using the road itself. Because Johnson Road ends before reaching the river and the Varners used it only to reach County Road 177, not the river path, the covenant did not apply to their access.
propertytorts & liability