Case law

State v. Coulter

75 Ohio App. 3d 219 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 11, 1992

In order to establish self-defense, the defendant must establish, among other things, that she had a bona-fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that the only means of escape from the … Indeed, the testimony of these witnesses, especially Sheppard, clearly had the potential to be adverse to appellant’s interests.

State v. Netherland

132 Ohio App. 3d 252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 1999

In child-abuse cases, qualified experts might include persons who have “specialized knowledge, experience and training in recognizing occurrences of child abuse.” State v. … Admittedly, a careful reading of the record indicates that neither party clearly or adequately established Hayes as an expert.

State v. Sanders

2022 Ohio 1806 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 2022

Given the testimony and the jury’s ability to see and hear D.B. both at trial and on the date of the incident, we cannot find that the jury clearly lost its way by determining that Sanders had not established that D.B. … An error qualifies as “plain error” only if it is obvious and but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise. State v. Barnhart, 3d Dist.

State v. Todd

2023 Ohio 2139 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2023

the problem in Garrett by producing direct evidence of the lack of consent element from an employee of the owner duly authorized to give or withhold consent. {¶14} Even if the maintenance coordinator was not qualified … Cuyahoga No. 100394, 2014-Ohio-3413, ¶ 28 (finding all elements of criminal damaging established where witness heard glass shattering, found her window shattered, and saw the defendant next to her car); Drane, 2d Dist.

State v. Cherry

2024 Ohio 5344 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2024

Here, the evidence at trial established that Christy had initially gone to Cherry’s trailer so Tyson could purchase drugs from Cherry. … “To qualify as a present sense impression, the statement must be made in close temporal proximity to the event described.” State v.

State v. Henry

2026 Ohio 1012 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2026

at the time of the statements even though an hour had elapsed since defendant left the scene). {¶26} Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting V.C.’s statements as they qualify … “Ownership need not be proven to establish constructive possession.” State v. Sarvabui, 2020-Ohio-1429, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.). “This Court has specifically noted that access to a weapon can establish possession.”

Nationwide Property Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kavanaugh

2013 Ohio 4730 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2013

During the contract negotiations, Knight stated that to qualify for the type of policy she wanted, Kavanaugh, as the owner of the subject property, would have to reside there. … also noted that Koby used his parents’ residence as his permanent address, that he maintained an Ohio driver’s license, and that he used his parents’ address for voting and income tax purposes. {¶ 25} Koby is clearly

In re: F.B.

115 N.E.3d 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2018

That inquiry clearly relied on several factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.051(D). … (2) Notwithstanding the stipulation, the admissibility of the test results is subject to the discretion of the trial judge, and if the trial judge is not convinced that the examiner is qualified or

State v. Thompson

2016 Ohio 5571 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2016

For example, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that police officers trained and qualified may testify that a substance is marijuana without a laboratory test as long as there is a sufficient foundation laid to establish … testimony is established.

State v. Alton, 88079 (5-3-2007)

2007 Ohio 2109 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 3, 2007

Alton thus claims that, since Escalante was appointed to his position without taking a civil service examination, he was not qualified to seek a search warrant. … Therefore, this court cannot find that the jury clearly lost its way in resolving any evidentiary conflicts. State v.

Winters National Bank & Trust Co. v. Cullen

41 Ohio Law. Abs. 417 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1944

National Bank & Trust Company was for the purpose of determining the .heirs of the deceased testator, and states that the action is brought by it as trustee under the will of Owen Smith, deceased, of whom it is the duly qualified … “It is well established that the fact that a remainder created by will is liable to be divested by a subsequent event does not render it contingent.

Williams v. D&J House Doctors, L.L.C.

2025 Ohio 4716 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2025

Legal Standard {¶23} R.C. 5302.30(C) requires the seller of qualifying residential properties to complete a disclosure form. … Thus, AFI contends that, even if the water intrusion and mold damage had occurred during the policy period, Williams’s proposed cause would still clearly fall within the “Continuous or Repeated Seepage” exclusion.

State v. Hardesty

2025 Ohio 5744 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2025

“Privilege” means “an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or Ross App. … Here, the State clearly demonstrated that Ross App.

State v. Vaughn

2020 Ohio 307 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2020

Davison testified that he had testified as an expert witness in approximately 55 trials in Ohio and other states. {¶ 45} In the instant case, Davison’s testimony established that he was qualified to testify as … evidence, the appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider witness credibility, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact ‘clearly

State v. Widmer

2013 Ohio 62 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2013

ESTABLISHED U.S. … qualifies as "actually false."3 See Coe, 161 F.3d at 343; R.C. 2921.11(A).

State v. McGriff

109 Ohio App. 3d 668 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1996

The state’s assignment of error is: “The trial court erred in permitting the defendant-doctor to immunize himself from criminal prosecution by asserting the doctor-patient privilege.” … “The rule clearly states that the matter of privilege is controlled by statute or common law. This rule removes the matter of privileges from the operation of the Rules of Evidence.

State v. Bittner

2019 Ohio 3834 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2019

Makoroff was not qualified as an expert in radiology or orthopedics. However, the record shows that Dr. … Consequently, appellant has failed to establish that his sentence is inconsistent with the sentence imposed for child endangerment in Laracuente or other cases. {¶ 43} Appellant's third assignment of error is overruled

State v. Trusty

2013 Ohio 3548 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2013

Instead, her answer on direct examination may not have been clearly articulated. … For a statement to qualify under this narrow exception to the hearsay rules, the witness must have made the consistent statement before the alleged fabrication, influence or motive occurred. State v.

Garrison v. Bobbitt, Unpublished Decision (6-18-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 1999

"The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. … may be asserted to establish nonliability: * * * 6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered by that division or sections 3314.07 and 3746.24

Addington v. Addington, Unpublished Decision (9-12-2006)

2006 Ohio 4871 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2006

Clearly, the statutes contemplate other factors qualifying as a change of circumstances. … In this case, appellant got remarried to a woman who lived in another area and had two minor children with established familial and school situations.