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 175 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Kilbane 106753# 106753 - S/O v. Terrence Thomas Kilbane Domestic violence; self-defense; nondeadly force; manifest weight of the evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial court applied correct standard for establishing claim of self-defense where the defendant used nondeadly force. Defendant’s domestic violence conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where evidence showed that the defendant created the situation that gave rise to the affray. Trial counsel was not ineffective even though he erroneously suggested that the defendant might have a duty to retreat where there was no evidence that the trial court applied the wrong standard for determining a claim of self-defense and the evidence showed that the defendant created the situation that gave rise to the fight.GallagherCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-863
State v. Grayson 106578Appeal No. 106578 - State of Ohio v. Michael T. Grayson R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); consecutive sentences; void; R.C. 2953.08. The imposition of consecutive or concurrent service is tied to the finality of the individual sentence, and the trial court does not have continuing jurisdiction to reconsider the consecutive or concurrent service upon a remand to address other sentencing matters.GallagherCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-864
State v. Newlin 106922#106922 Involuntary manslaughter, drug trafficking, ineffective assistance of counsel, sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight of the evidence, consecutive sentence findings, R.C. 2929.14. Trial counsel was not ineffective for withdrawing a motion to suppress where counsel stated on the record that, through discovery and further investigation, the suppression issues challenging the warrant and search were meritless. Appellant’s convictions including involuntary manslaughter and drug trafficking were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where cell phone records demonstrated direct contact between the victim and appellant several times during the day of the victim’s death, the heroin envelope at the crime scene contained appellant’s DNA and matched those used by appellant during controlled drug buys and found at appellant’s apartment, and the victim died promptly after ingesting the heroin. The trial court complied with the consecutive sentencing factors pursuant to R.C. 2929.14 on the record and in the journal entry. MaysCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-865
In re J.J. 106954Delinquency adjudication by reason of kidnapping; R.C. 2905.01(A)(4); twerking; admissibility of statements by child victim regarding alleged sexual abuse; competency of alleged child victim to testify; Evid.R. 601; voir dire examination; Evid.R. 807; abuse of discretion; plain error. Juvenile court abused its discretion and committed plain error in determining that alleged child victim was incompetent to testify without conducting a proper voir dire examination of the child under Evid.R. 601(A). GallagherCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-866
State v. Parks 106977#106977 Crim.R. 29; sufficiency of evidence; motion to suppress, Miranda warnings waiver. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal where there was sufficient evidence to prove penetration as an element of rape. The trial court did not err by not suppressing appellant’s statement during his bench trial after a finding that the signed Miranda warning waiver was valid. Additionally, appellant did not file a motion to suppress. Therefore, he waives any objection to its admission.MaysCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-867
State v. McCoy 107029Kidnapping; evidence; inconsistent verdicts; severance; preindictment delay; maximum sentence. That jury acquitted defendant of 13 counts and found him guilty of only one count does not mean that the guilty verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Consistency in the verdict is not necessary because each count in an indictment is regarded as if it was a separate indictment. Sufficient evidence existed to prove that defendant terrorized the victim while he restrained her liberty by repeatedly assaulting her and smothering her into unconsciousness and humiliating her by denying her access to the bathroom and forcing her to remain in soiled clothing. Defendant failed to show actual prejudice resulting from preindictment delay because text messages showing why the argument occurred would not have justified the defendant’s acts against the victim. YarbroughCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-868
State v. Homolak 107040Guilty plea; knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; Crim.R. 11; totality of circumstances. A trial court does not violate Crim.R. 11, when under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant was aware he would be sentenced to a mandatory prison sentence. Where the trial court does not declare that the defendant will be sentenced to a mandatory prison term, but where it is nevertheless clear from the record and from the severity of the defendant’s crimes that he or she is ineligible for community control sanctions, there is substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11. YarbroughCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-869
State v. Hicks 107055Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); proportionality finding; clearly and convincingly not supported by the record; nunc pro tunc. Although trial court did not state verbatim at the sentencing hearing that consecutive sentences would not be disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant’s conduct and the danger defendant poses to the public, requisite proportionality finding could be discerned from the trial court’s statements on the record when viewed in their entirety. Trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Sentences affirmed; remanded in part for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc order incorporating the consecutive sentence findings made at the sentencing hearing into its sentencing journal entry.GallagherCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-870
State v. Williams 107151State v. Williams, App. No. 107151. Improperly handling firearms in motor vehicle; R.C. 2923.16; self-defense; R.C. 2923.12; handgun; principles and purposes of felony sentencing; R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Self-defense is not available as an affirmative defense to improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B) when the weapon involved is a handgun. The trial court considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing and was not required to make findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The appellant’s sentence was therefore not contrary to law.SheehanCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-871
In re S.B. 107579107579 Permanent custody, manifest weight of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, R.C. 2151.414. The record clearly and convincingly supported the trial court’s decision awarding permanent custody to CCDCFS because evidence showed that the children could not be placed with mother within a reasonable period of time and granting CCDCFS permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.BoyleCuyahoga 3/14/2019 3/14/2019 2019-Ohio-872