| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2021-0051
|
State of Ohio
v.
Miranda C. Smith
|
OPEN
|
3/2/2021
| Proposition of Law:
A conviction for rape based on insertion must be supported by
evidence that the person accused inserted a body part or object into
another. |
|
2021-0001
|
State of Ohio
v.
Jeremy Cochran
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
3/2/2021
| APPELLANT'S FIRST PROPOSITION OF LAW:
As amended by the Reagan Tokes Act, the Revised Code's sentences for qualifying felonies violates the constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio
APPELLANT'S SECOND PROPOSITION OF LAW:
Challenges to the Reagan Tokes Act are ripe for review on direct appeal. |
|
2020-1505
|
State of Ohio
v.
Nigel J. Brunson
|
OPEN
|
3/2/2021
| Proposition of Law I:
A trial court violates a defendant’s right to remain silent, in violation
of both the Ohio Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, when it relies
upon that silence as part of the basis for imposing a sentence of Life
without the possibility of parole.
Proposition of Law III:
A witness waives attorney-client privilege with respect to a subject
when he or she offers testimony on the same subject.
Proposition of Law IV:
The attorney-client privilege of a State’s witness must yield to a
defendant’s right to present a full defense and confront his accuser
when the information that is purportedly the subject of that privilege
is Brady material in the possession of the State. |
|
2020-1503
|
State of Ohio/City of Bryan
v.
Steven M. Towns
|
OPEN
|
3/2/2021
| Proposition of Law No. II: RC 102.03(B) does not permit complaints subject to chapter 102 of the Revised Code to proceed as a criminal complaint without a review of the Ohio Ethics Commission. |
|
2020-1496
|
State of Ohio
v.
Christopher P. Hacker
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
3/2/2021
| FIRST PROPOSITION OF LAW
As Amended By The Reagan Tokes Act, The Revised Code's Sentences For First And Second Degree Qualifying Felonies Violate The United States And Ohio Constitutions. |
|
2020-1429
|
State of Ohio
v.
Donovan Asher Nicholas
|
OPEN
|
2/16/2021
| First Proposition of Law: Because standards of review are functions of due process, non-amenability
decisions must be supported by clear and convincing evidence |
|
2020-1429
|
State of Ohio
v.
Donovan Asher Nicholas
|
OPEN
|
2/16/2021
|
Second Proposition of Law: As the party moving for discretionary transfer under R.C. 2152.12(B),
prosecutors bear the burden of proving the child is not amenable to juvenile court treatment. A
transfer decision without any affirmative proof of non-amenability must be
reversed
|
|
2020-1429
|
State of Ohio
v.
Donovan Asher Nicholas
|
OPEN
|
2/16/2021
| Third Proposition of Law: To meaningfully decide whether juvenile offenders are not amenable to
juvenile court treatment, juvenile judges must
. first weigh all the available dispositional options, especially, where provided by statute, a
serious youthful offender disposition
|
|
2020-1420
|
State of Ohio
v.
Lance A. Irvin
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
1/27/2021
| The burden-shifting changes made to the self-defense statute, R.C.
2901.05, through the passage of H.B. 228 apply to offenses that were
committed before the effective date of the statute but tried after the
effective date. |
|
2020-1392
|
State of Ohio
v.
John D. Yerkey
|
OPEN
|
2/2/2021
| Proposition of Law No. I: Victims are constitutionally entitled to full and timely restitution, including restitution for losses victims incur throughout the prosecution of the criminal offense.
Proposition of Law No. II: Victims must be entitled to restitution for losses incurred throughout the prosecution of the criminal offense in order to protect victims' constitutional rights to be present throughout the criminal justice process and heard when their rights are implicated. |
|