Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 373 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Adams 27360No non-frivolous issues exist for appellate review in this Anders appeal.HallMontgomery 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8245
State v. Boehme 27255The trial court did not err by denying Appellant's request for a Daubert hearing concerning reference to generalized research studies on which Appellee's child sexual assault expert, in part, based her expert opinions. Generalized reference to research consistent with the witness's own experience about child sexual assault victims could have been challenged during cross-examination of the expert or could have been challenged by testimony of the expert who had been engaged by the defense. The convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury reasonably believed the victim's testimony despite the fact that it appears to be inconsistent with prior statements made by the victim. Trial counsel was not ineffective for not moving to sever the rape charges from the charge of gross sexual imposition. The evidence of each offense is simple and direct, so severance was unlikely. And the evidence is such that even severed, Appellant likely would have been found guilty of all the offenses. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8246
State v. Brewer 2017-CA-17Anders appeal. The trial court has supplemented the record with materials that it considered at the time of defendant's original sentencing (namely, defendant's criminal record), and the record now supports the trial court's findings in support of consecutive sentences. There are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Judgment affirmed.FroelichGreene 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8247
State v. Burns 27386Defendant-appellant, following a jury trial, was convicted of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, abduction (remove) and abduction (restrain). The photographic lineup procedure which resulted in the victim identifying Defendant-appellant as the perpetrator was not unduly suggestive. The abduction (remove) and abduction (restrain) offenses were committed separately, and, thus, are not allied offenses of similar import requiring merger. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8248
State v. Christian 27236Trial court erred in its resentencing of appellant on Count II. Count II was reduced by operation of law from a felony of the third degree to a felony of the fourth degree; as a result, upon resentencing, the trial court reduced the sentence for Count II from 36 months to 12 months. The trial court also ordered Count II to be served consecutively to Count V, when it originally had been ordered to be served concurrently. The new sentence on Count II is contrary to law, as appellant has already served more than 12 months on Count II. Therefore, the trial court was without authority to order that Count II, for which the 12-month sentence had already been completed, be served consecutively to Count V. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.DonovanMontgomery 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8249
State v. Hughes 27433Trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that DNA testing would not be outcome determinative in defendant's case, and therefore in denying his application for DNA testing. Trial court was not required to wait for defendant's untimely reply to the State's memorandum in opposition to DNA testing, despite defendant's having filed a "notice of intent" to file a reply by a date that was long past the deadline. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8250
State v. Matharu 26985The trial court's decision not to order Defendant-appellant to undergo a forensic competency evaluation did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8251
State v. Menchu 27339Defendant-appellant has not established that trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation. Thus, Defendant-appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel argument fails. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8252
State v. Peyton 2016-CA-41After conducting a review of the record as prescribed by Anders, we find no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Contrary to Appellant's claim otherwise, the totality of the circumstances indicate that the trial court substantially complied with its obligation under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) to determine that Appellant understood the nature of the charge against him before accepting his no contest plea. Affirmed.WelbaumGreene 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8253
White v. Buehrer 27295Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of employee in administrative appeal from the denial of workers' compensation. Employee bore the burden of proof on the issue of an idiopathic cause of her fall, and there remained a genuine issue of material fact on that issue. Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings.FroelichMontgomery 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 2017-Ohio-8254
12345678910...>>