The case involved a challenge by Taser International to the Summit County Chief Medical Examiner's determinations of cause and manner of death for three men who died after police used TASER devices during arrests or encounters in 2005 and 2006. The medical examiner had ruled that the TASER deployments contributed to the deaths, classifying two as homicides and noting electrical restraint in the third. The trial court ordered changes to the autopsy reports and death certificates to remove or alter those references. On appeal, the court affirmed modifications for two decedents where evidence supported changing the manner of death to undetermined or deleting TASER references, but reversed as to the third because the trial court exceeded the pleadings and trial evidence by ordering removal of unrelated restraint details.
The case concerned criminal defendants facing capital charges who filed motions challenging the death penalty specification in their indictments. The appellate court held that the trial court's order was not a final, appealable order. A concurring opinion separately addressed the trial judge's conduct, noting that he served as an interpreter for one defendant during a key hearing, expanded the proceedings to broadly examine the constitutionality of Ohio's death penalty beyond the relief sought, and held a prosecutor in contempt for arguments made in a response brief, all of which the concurrence found inconsistent with standards of judicial conduct.
The case involved Mitchell Reinhardt's conviction for gross sexual imposition after a jury acquitted him of rape, based on allegations of abuse of his four-year-old niece K.R. Reinhardt appealed, arguing among other points that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the six-year-old child competent to testify under Evid. R. 601(A). The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, explaining that the trial court's voir dire showed the child could perceive, recollect, and communicate impressions of fact, understood truth versus falsity, and appreciated the need to testify truthfully, satisfying the factors from State v. Frazier. The appellate court held that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in the competency determination.
This case involves Lindsay's lawsuit against Children's Hospital Medical Center claiming breach of contract over the terms of her employment termination. The majority of the appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Lindsay received the required thirty-day notice of termination and therefore reversed the trial court's judgment on that claim. In a partial dissent, the judge would affirm the trial court's dismissal of the breach of contract claim in full, reasoning that the contract allowed a one-year notice to be reduced to thirty days if performance did not improve and that the record showed no genuine dispute because Lindsay's performance had not improved (and may have worsened) during the relevant period.
In State v. Graves, the defendant was convicted by a jury in Lorain County on multiple felony counts of drug possession and trafficking arising from a 2004 traffic stop and vehicle search that uncovered marijuana and cocaine. On appeal, he challenged the admission of a dashboard camera videotape capturing his and his co-defendants' spontaneous comments during the canine search and discovery of contraband, arguing violations of the Confrontation Clause, hearsay rules, and unfair prejudice, along with ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to the state's use of the tape in closing. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the statements qualified as present-sense impressions under Evid.R. 803(1) due to their temporal proximity and spontaneity to the events observed, that they were not offered for their truth or were otherwise admissible, and that no plain error or deficient performance by counsel occurred. The court reviewed the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and found the trial court's admission of the unrestricted tape did not warrant reversal.
The case involved homeowners Chuck and Marilyn DeLutis who sued Ashworth Home Builders and related parties after purchasing an existing completed home for $750,000, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act based on dissatisfaction with repairs and the home's condition. The trial court granted Ashworth a directed verdict on the CSPA claims, and the jury found for Ashworth on the remaining claims. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the CSPA does not apply to the sale of an existing home because real estate transactions are excluded from the statutory definition of consumer transactions, even when accompanied by repair agreements or a limited warranty, and the parties' additional improvement plans never occurred and were fully refunded.