Lynn C. Slaby

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employment

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Joshua Childress's appeal of his conviction in Summit County Court of Common Pleas for tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony under R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), after he was indicted on multiple drug-related charges and found guilty by a jury following a search warrant execution at his home. Childress argued that the trial court erred in denying his Crim. R. 29 motion for acquittal due to insufficient evidence that the methamphetamine existed, as the drugs were never recovered, and that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence based on conflicting testimony. The court reviewed the evidence for sufficiency and manifest weight, crediting the testimony of police officers who stated that Childress admitted swallowing an "eight ball" of methamphetamine tied in a baggy during his arrest to avoid detection. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the officers' accounts provided adequate evidence of the defendant's knowledge and intent to impair the evidence's availability, and that the jury's credibility determinations were within its province despite the defendant's denials.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved home buyers who sued the sellers' real estate agent and brokerage after discovering severe basement flooding from a nearby creek, alleging that the agent fraudulently failed to disclose known water and drainage problems. The buyers had purchased the home "as is" following their own inspection and later settled with the sellers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the realtors, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the buyers presented no evidence that the agent made any representations about the property, knew of defects, or concealed information. The court applied the doctrine of caveat emptor, noting the buyers' acceptance of the home's condition and their reliance on their own agent, which precluded a claim for fraudulent nondisclosure.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Jason W. Darnell, who was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after a confidential informant working with police arranged and completed a drug purchase at a residence. The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he participated in the sale and that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and one-year prison term, reasoning that testimony from the detective, informant, and cooperating witness placed the defendant at the scene as the source of the cocaine and recipient of the proceeds, and that the jury's credibility determinations were supported by consistent evidence.

criminal law

This case involved a juvenile, A.K., who was charged with gross sexual imposition against his younger sister. After admitting to the charge, a magistrate found him delinquent, and the trial court adopted that decision, committed him to the Department of Youth Services, and classified him as a mandatory Tier II juvenile sex offender registrant. A.K. appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The court reasoned that the trial court's order was not a final, appealable order because it adopted the magistrate's decision without entering a judgment that explicitly found A.K. to be a delinquent child, as required for jurisdiction.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In this case, Dale Krakora sued Superior Energy Systems, Ltd. and several individuals for a declaratory judgment on his membership rights under the company's 2002 operating agreement, along with claims including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and tortious interference. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings based on an arbitration clause in the agreement, but Krakora opposed the motion and later submitted a purported unilateral amendment by a majority member that replaced the arbitration clause with a forum selection clause designating Lorain County courts. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a required hearing under R.C. 2711.03 before ruling on the motion to compel arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Smith, defendants Omondo Varner and Tony Smith appealed the Summit County Court of Common Pleas' denial of their motions for resentencing after their 2001 convictions for drug and weapons offenses. The defendants argued that their sentences were void due to the trial court's failure to advise them of postrelease control and that they were entitled to resentencing under Kimbrough v. United States regarding cocaine sentencing disparities. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings, classifying the motions as untimely petitions for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 that did not meet jurisdictional requirements. It reasoned that precedent from State v. Price governed the classification and timeliness issues, while State v. Simpkins did not mandate resentencing in this context, and Kimbrough did not recognize a new retroactive right applicable to their cases.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a landlord, John Carson, who sued his former tenant, Gary Stewart, in Akron Municipal Court for unpaid rent, utilities, property damage, and fees totaling $2,630.95 after Stewart vacated the premises. The magistrate ruled for Carson, but the trial court first adopted the magistrate's decision and dismissed the case on June 11, 2008, then later issued a second order on June 20 reconsidering objections and again adopting the magistrate's decision. The appellate court vacated the June 20 order, holding that the June 11 judgment was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 that left nothing unresolved, and the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to modify or revisit it under the civil rules. The court noted that Carson could no longer appeal the June 11 order because the time to do so had expired.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a motion to suppress evidence of prior juvenile adjudications in a criminal matter, turning on whether the defendant had validly waived her right to counsel in those earlier proceedings. The dissenting opinion would reverse the trial court's suppression ruling, concluding that the State satisfied its burden of proof. The judge reasoned that the introduction of two journal entries—each with checked boxes confirming the defendant was advised of and waived counsel—established a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver under the relevant precedent, so the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Jackson, the defendant appealed his resentencing in a felonious assault case after a two-year delay following remand from a prior appeal for failure to make required statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(B). The trial court reimposed the original four-year prison term but suspended it in favor of a Reentry Program and judicial release, after notifying the defendant of three years of post-release control. On appeal, the defendant argued that the post-release control notification was facially insufficient, that the delay divested the court of jurisdiction under Crim. R. 32(A) and related precedents, and that the delay violated his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that the defendant forfeited these challenges by appearing at the resentencing hearing, agreeing to the Reentry Program without objection, and filing a motion for judicial release that did not contest jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Wimmer Family Trust seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop Ohio Edison from clear-cutting trees on the Trust's property inside and outside a utility transmission line easement. The trial court denied the Trust's motion for a preliminary injunction and declared that Ohio Edison could remove vegetation it determined might interfere with or endanger its 69,000-volt line. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the easement language was unambiguous in permitting trimming or removal of interfering trees and that evidence of safety hazards such as arcing and outages supported the utility's actions. The Trust had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a dispute between property owners and the City of Avon Lake over special assessments for new sidewalks, specifically whether the owners provided adequate evidence that the improvements conferred no benefit or value enhancement to their lots. The majority permitted property owners to testify regarding property value and apparently found their statements sufficient to defeat summary judgment. In this dissenting opinion, Judge Slaby contends that the owners only asserted a lack of benefit without offering evidence of the properties' actual value before and after the sidewalks, as required by the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Wolfe. Accordingly, the dissent concludes the owners failed to meet their evidentiary burden and would affirm the trial court's judgment for the city.

propertyprocedure

The case White v. Summa Health System concerned claims by Mr. White against a hospital arising from an incident involving a Hoyer lift used to move patients. The court affirmed the lower court's decision on the claim of negligent operation of the lift but reversed on the claim of negligent maintenance of the lift. A concurring opinion agreed with that result while clarifying that the claims were ordinary negligence allegations rather than medical malpractice. The reasoning focused on the distinction between operational use and equipment upkeep without characterizing the matter as a medical professional liability issue.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In State v. Whalen, the defendant was charged with driving under the influence and related offenses after a traffic stop and breath alcohol test; she sought discovery of booking and test video recordings, then moved to dismiss after learning a tape had been made and later destroyed by police. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the defendant was convicted following trial. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the defendant failed to show the destroyed evidence was exculpatory or that police acted in bad faith, as required under due process standards from cases like Arizona v. Youngblood. The court noted the tape was recirculated before any preservation request and without evidence that officers knew of its potential value at the time of destruction. The defendant also forfeited arguments about a document retention policy by not raising them below.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a criminal defendant's speedy trial claim in the context of dismissed charges and a later indictment. The majority concluded that the period after dismissal of the initial complaint did not count toward the speedy trial deadline if that dismissal was valid and proceeded to review the validity of the nolle prosequi dismissal. The dissent agrees that the post-dismissal period should not count but disagrees with conducting a full appellate review of the dismissal's propriety, noting that the trial court deemed the issue moot, the record lacks supporting evidence, and such a determination should not be made for the first time on a silent record. The dissent would reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure