William W. Young

In State v. Dugan, the defendant was charged with operating a vehicle under the influence after a traffic stop for a center-line violation and subsequent breath tests on an Intoxilyzer 8000 that recorded BAC levels above the legal limit. She moved to suppress the test results, citing discrepancies between the Subject Test Report and ODH database records showing multiple sample attempts that the administering officer did not observe. The trial court partially granted the motion to suppress, but the Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the state demonstrated substantial compliance with Ohio Department of Health regulations through officer and ODH administrator testimony explaining how the machine registers attempts without audible indicators. The court held that any minor procedural variations did not render the results inadmissible and that statutory presumptions of reliability applied absent contrary evidence presented at the suppression hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a travel nurse who contracted with Advantage RN, LLC to work at a North Carolina hospital for 13 weeks but was terminated after failing a required Performance Based Development System test; the nurse sued the company and two employees for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraud, seeking reimbursement for preparation and travel expenses. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the misrepresentation and fraud claims, dismissed the individual defendants, and later granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim after receiving evidence that the plaintiff did not meet the hospital's test expectations. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the contract permitted termination based on the traveler's actions, that employees acting within the scope of employment could not be held personally liable, and that there was no evidence supporting fraud or misrepresentation claims; the court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to vacate under Civ.R. 60(B).

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Marshall, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of felonious assault with firearm specifications for his alleged role in a September 2007 shootout at a Middletown housing complex that injured multiple people. The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as a shooter and arguing that the presence of two victims (Jerrel and Jeremy) during trial testimony violated his fair trial rights. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that multiple eyewitness accounts placed the defendant at the scene firing an automatic weapon and that victims have constitutional and statutory rights to attend proceedings under Ohio law unless their presence demonstrably prejudices the defendant, which was not shown here.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was about Shadeed Barnett's appeal of his conviction for felonious assault with a firearm specification after a jury trial in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, arising from a shootout in a Middletown, Ohio housing complex on September 19, 2007, that injured multiple people including Demarco Conley. The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that, although much of the evidence against Barnett was circumstantial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution it was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the elements of felonious assault proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based on witness testimony placing Barnett at the scene with a weapon, identifications of him shooting, and physical evidence such as shell casings and a bullet recovered from his apartment.

criminal lawguns

In Koop v. Speedway Superamerica, LLC, the plaintiff sued the defendant convenience store for negligence after she slipped and fell while walking toward the checkout counter shortly after a coffee spill had been mopped, claiming the store failed to properly clean the area. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the court of appeals affirmed that decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiff's proffered incident report and witness statements lacked proper authentication or certification and thus were inadmissible on summary judgment, while the store manager's testimony about possible dampness on the floor amounted to speculation without personal knowledge of the fall's cause and therefore could not establish proximate cause.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Gregory Gellenbeck appealing his conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) after a state trooper visually estimated his speed at 80 m.p.h. and recorded 83-84 m.p.h. via Python radar on Interstate 71. Gellenbeck argued that his statutory speedy trial rights under R.C. 2945.71(A) were violated because trial occurred after the original 30-day limit and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence based on the trooper's testimony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that Gellenbeck's own motion to continue his arraignment tolled the speedy trial period by seven days under R.C. 2945.72(H), placing the August 6 trial date within the extended limit, and that the trooper's detailed testimony on visual estimation, radar calibration, and operation constituted sufficient evidence of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a divorced father's appeal from the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, seeking legal custody of his youngest daughter and termination of his child and spousal support obligations based on claims of the mother's interference with parenting time and her cohabitation with a boyfriend. The court affirmed the denial of the custody modification, ruling that the alleged changes did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances under the existing order. It also upheld the denial of support termination, finding the mother's relationship lacked the mutual financial support required to qualify as cohabitation, and affirmed related determinations on income calculations and property division.

family law

The case involved a dispute over ownership rights and responsibilities in a multi-story building in Oxford, Ohio, co-owned by JPMorgan Chase Bank (which owns the first floor, basement, and part of the second floor) and trustees for the Oddfellows lodge (which owns the third floor and the rest of the second floor), with third-party buyers planning residential conversion. After the parties stipulated to the facts and deeds showing clear title but no written agreements on maintenance or access, the trial court quieted title, declared the parties tenants in common, granted reciprocal easements for shared areas like the stairwell and roof access, and set rules allocating repair costs, insurance, alterations, and liability. JPMorgan appealed, arguing the magistrate's decision erred in these declarations and failed to address concerns adequately. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the quiet title ruling was supported by the stipulations without needing deed construction, and the declaratory judgment was within the trial court's discretion as it addressed the parties' interests without being arbitrary.

property

The case involved Robert Arrone's appeal of his conviction for second-degree felony drug possession after police executed a search warrant at a house and found crack cocaine in the bedroom and bathroom. At trial, evidence included Arrone's driver's license and cell phone in the bedroom, testimony from the renter that Arrone had been staying there and selling drugs, and his statement to police acknowledging the drugs were the reason for the search. Arrone challenged the conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence for constructive possession, improper admission of certain testimony, and an excessive sentence given his limited criminal history. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and five-year sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find knowing possession, any evidentiary issues were harmless, and the sentence complied with statutory requirements without constituting an abuse of discretion.

criminal law

In Cox v. Cox, Ethan Cox sued his former stepmother Jamie Cox and half-sister Ashley Cox for defamation after they accused him of raping and sexually abusing Ashley as a child; Ashley counterclaimed alleging sexual abuse by Ethan. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered a verdict for Ethan awarding compensatory and punitive damages against both defendants and denied the defendants' motion for a new trial after reducing one punitive award with the plaintiff's consent. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the defendants waived challenges to jury instructions by not making specific objections on the record as required by Civ. R. 51(A), that the trial court properly exercised discretion in excluding certain impeachment evidence, and that the damages were not excessive under federal or state standards nor the product of passion or prejudice.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

In this divorce case, the parties disputed custody of their young child after the mother moved out of state; the trial court initially named the father as residential parent but later awarded that role to the mother following trial and a psychological evaluation, granting the father standard parenting time. The father appealed, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to reconsider based on the mother's loss of primary custody of her older child (a factor emphasized in the evaluation and initial ruling) and by relying on a stale psychological report. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the sibling relationship was only one of several statutory best-interest factors under R.C. 3109.04 that the trial court properly weighed with competent evidence, and that the father had not timely objected to the report's age during proceedings.

family law

The case involved a juvenile, A.R.D., who was adjudicated delinquent in 2005 for gross sexual imposition and placed on probation with a suspended commitment to the Department of Youth Services, conditioned on completing a residential treatment program. In 2008, after the juvenile made little progress and violated program rules, the trial court revoked probation and imposed the commitment following a hearing. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the revocation violated Juvenile Rules 34(C) and 35(B) because the juvenile had never received written notice of his specific probation conditions until after the violation complaint was filed, depriving him of due process. The decision emphasized that probation cannot be revoked based on conditions of which the juvenile was not timely notified in writing. The second assignment of error regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was deemed moot.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this divorce case after 20 years of marriage, the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, divided marital assets including a jointly owned business (OTS), an airplane, and Bengals season tickets, while also awarding spousal support. The trial court valued OTS at $314,131 and awarded it to the wife, valued the airplane at $329,158 and awarded it to the husband, split the $18,000 value of the tickets, and ordered the wife to pay the husband $6,000 per month in spousal support for five years. The husband appealed, arguing errors in the valuations of OTS and the airplane. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion because the valuations were supported by expert testimony and reports, trial courts have broad discretion in equitably dividing property based on the totality of circumstances, and appellate courts defer to the trial court's credibility assessments of witnesses.

family lawproperty

In State v. McDonald, the defendant was convicted in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas on twelve counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, attempted use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, voyeurism, and gross sexual imposition after police found photos on his computer showing him pulling down the shirts of sleeping minor girls to expose their breasts. McDonald entered a no contest plea and appealed, arguing that the indictment was defective for omitting the required mens rea, depriving the court of jurisdiction, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the photos were lewd. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, applying Ohio Supreme Court precedent from State v. Colon to hold that the missing mens rea did not create structural error warranting reversal on appeal, and finding the photos' focus on the victims' exposed nipple areas while they slept sufficient to establish lewdness under the statute.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Adam Chasteen, who was convicted after a bench trial of kidnapping and victim intimidation arising from an incident with his ex-girlfriend. On the night in question, Chasteen arrived at the home where she was staying, assaulted her and her cousin, held a knife to her throat, forced her into his car under threat of death, and drove her to his house; weeks later, after his release on bond, he called her and threatened harm to her or her cousin unless she recanted her kidnapping allegation to authorities. The trial court sentenced him to five years in prison on the kidnapping count, with concurrent terms on the other offenses. On appeal, the court affirmed both convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove the elements of kidnapping rather than the lesser offense of abduction and that the phone call constituted a felony intimidation by unlawful threat of harm.

criminal law

The case involves defendant Preston Carpenter's appeal of an April 2008 resentencing to ten years in prison after multiple prior appeals in his 2005 multi-count conviction for drug possession, trafficking, weapons, and related offenses. The appellate court vacated the trial court's 2008 resentencing entry as to the sentences on Counts Ten, Fifteen, and Seventeen, and reinstated the prison terms from the February 2007 entry for those and the other affirmed counts. The core reasoning was that the remand in the prior appeal (Carpenter III) was limited solely to addressing the invalid search warrant issue and the reversed counts, and did not reopen or authorize resentencing on counts whose convictions and sentences had already been affirmed and become final.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit filed by Hilde Carter against Woody's Café, Thaddeus Schlichter, and Michael Noble after she was injured during a fight between Schlichter and Noble at the bar. Carter claimed negligence by the individuals and that Woody's violated Ohio law by serving alcohol to intoxicated persons. The trial court granted summary judgment to Woody's and made a finding of intoxication, but denied summary judgment to Schlichter. On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment for Woody's and the intoxication finding regarding Schlichter, dismissing Schlichter's appeal, because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard under R.C. 4399.18 for liability when the injury occurred on the premises.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Taylor, the defendant appealed his guilty pleas and 20-year prison sentence for rape, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping arising from 1999 incidents, after the trial court denied his post-sentence motion to withdraw the pleas. The defendant argued that off-the-record discussions led him to expect concurrent sentences, that the court should have held a hearing on his motion or given him more time to reply to the state's opposition, and that the consecutive maximum sentences violated sentencing statutes and due process. The appellate court reviewed the record of the plea hearing, where the prosecutor recommended concurrent terms but the court advised the defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentences up to 30 years, and found no manifest injustice or abuse of discretion in denying the motion without a hearing. It further held that the trial court properly considered statutory factors without needing to make specific findings, that the sentence was within the legal range, and that challenges to the Ohio Supreme Court's Foster decision were beyond its jurisdiction. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and sentence in full.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Travelers Indemnity Company suing Zumstein Management Company for breach of contract to recover additional workers' compensation insurance premiums of over $266,000 after an audit, based on claims that Zumstein's Michigan-based drivers were covered under policies Travelers issued for Michigan. The parties stipulated facts showing Zumstein's drivers had executed Ohio C-110 forms electing coverage under Ohio's workers' compensation system instead. The trial court granted summary judgment to Zumstein and dismissed the claim, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the C-110 elections were valid under Ohio law, did not constitute waivers under Michigan law, were timely filed, and meant Zumstein had no obligation to provide Michigan benefits so no basis existed to recalculate premiums. The court applied de novo review to the cross-motions for summary judgment and found the policies' Michigan choice-of-law provision did not alter the outcome on the underlying coverage obligations.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Craft, the defendant appealed his convictions for marijuana possession and trafficking (with firearm specifications) and having weapons while under disability, which arose from a police search of his home that uncovered 55 pounds of marijuana, cash, drug paraphernalia, and weapons. The trial court had denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained under a warrant based on confidential informants, surveillance, and an anonymous tip, and it allowed the state to amend the weapons charge from one subsection of the statute to another based on the defendant's juvenile burglary conviction. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the warrant affidavit provided a substantial basis for the issuing judge to find probable cause under the totality of circumstances, including the reliability of the hearsay sources, and that review of suppression rulings accepts supported factual findings while assessing only whether a fair probability of contraband existed. The court also addressed the amendment under Crim.R. 7(D) and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its partial reversal.

criminal lawgunsprocedure