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 72 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Tucker CA2017-12-172A defendant appeals his convictions for aggravated arson and felony murder, which arose from his participation in a scheme with a codefendant to set an arson fire at the codefendant's home for insurance money. A firefighter died while responding the fire. Substantial circumstantial evidence implicated the defendant as the arsonist and the greater weight of the evidence supported his convictions. The defendant failed to establish that his joint trial with his codefendant was manifestly prejudicial. The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a videotape depicting the state's theory of how the defendant gained access to the locked basement of the home where the evidence was relevant and the method substantially similar to what may have occurred. The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a lay witness' opinion testimony where the lay witness' testimony would be speculative. The state did not engage in misconduct where the prosecutor encouraged jurors to consider the passage of time during their deliberations. The passage of time is a constant and an everyday aspect of life, and does not call for the jurors to conduct improper experimentation.M. PowellButler 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-911
State v. Young CA2018-03-047Appellant's conviction for gross sexual imposition was supported by sufficient evidence, but the trial court erred by denying appellant leave to file his motion for new trial where appellant demonstrated, by clear and convincing proof, that he was unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for new trial based on an irregularity in the proceedings within the 14-day time period set forth in Crim.R. 33(B). HendricksonButler 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-912
State v. Gerdes CA2018-03-056Conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the jury believed evidence presented by the state that defendant caused or attempted to cause physical harm to the victim. RinglandButler 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-913
State v. Hill CA2018-09-190Anders no error.Per CuriamButler 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-914
In re Z.N.T. CA2018-05-035The juvenile court erred in finding that Civ.R. 52 did not apply to the court's exercise of its child custody jurisdiction. Father did not waive his right to challenge a shared parenting plan provision removing the juvenile court's continuing jurisdiction over child custody and visitation when he acquiesced to the original shared parenting plan and failed to object to a magistrate's decision denying a motion for lack of jurisdiction where the provision is against public policy and unenforceable. M. PowellClermont 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-915
State v. Weber CA2018-06-040R.C. 2923.15, the using weapons while intoxicated statute, does not violate the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Ohio or federal Constitutions either facially or as applied to defendant. R.C. 2923.15 is not in conflict with the public policy declaration in R.C. 9.68.M. PowellClermont 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-916
State v. Doty CA2018-07-055The trial court did not err when it did not sue sponte order a presentence-investigative report prior to issuing its sentencing decision because a presentence-investigative report is not required in misdemeanor cases and where appellant requested the trial court proceed immediately to sentencing. The trial court also did not err by sentencing appellant to a total aggregate 90-day jail term consisting of three consecutive 30-day sentences on each of the three offenses for which he pled guilty where the record supported the trial court's decision sentencing appellant to the maximum sentence available.S. PowellClermont 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-917
State v. Nelson CA2018-05-007; CA2018-05-008Anders no error.Per CuriamFayette 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-922
State v. Lageson CA2018-05-054The state of Ohio appeals a decision granting intervention in lieu of conviction ("ILC") to a defendant who applied for ILC after a jury trial which resulted in a guilty verdict. The court erred in granting ILC where the ILC statute could not be reasonably interpreted to allow an offender to seek ILC after a jury trial, a verdict, and a finding of guilt by the court.RinglandWarren 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-919
State v. Howard CA2018-06-067Anders no error.Per CuriamWarren 3/18/2019 3/18/2019 2019-Ohio-920
12345678