Case law

State v. Lopez, 90240 (7-17-2008)

2008 Ohio 3534 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2008

Jamie Lopez with a qualified interpreter in violation of his constitutional rights and in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 2311.14 ." {¶ 5} "[II.] … The trial court failed to establish, pursuant to Criminal Rule 11(C)(2)(A) that Jamie Lopez knowingly and voluntarily [entered] his plea of guilty." {¶ 6} "[III.] Mr.

Geter v. Geter

194 N.E.3d 825 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2022

“The General Assembly's failure to clearly enunciate retroactivity ends the analysis, and the relevant statute may be applied only prospectively.” … The act establishes new definitions to clarify the types of orders to which the statute refers.

State v. Taylor

194 N.E.3d 867 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2022

As such, it does not directly control Taylor's case, since murder is a "category one" offense with no such qualifiers for bindover. … Both rules rest upon and clearly demonstrate the principle that bindover is a narrow exception to be construed strictly against transfer out of the juvenile court's parens patriae jurisdiction.

Dueck v. Clifton Club Co.

95 N.E.3d 1032 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2017

The Trustees establish the number of Club Members who can access the beach. … On the other hand, subsection (a) of this section requires that a trustee keep the qualified beneficiaries reasonably informed about the administration of the trust and of the material facts necessary for them to protect

State v. Hays, Unpublished Decision (10-17-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2001

Appellant claims that the record fails to demonstrate that the Trooper was qualified as an accident reconstructionist or even a trained officer. … R. 703. 2 A person is not qualified to give expert opinion testimony unless they are qualified as an expert under Evid.

State v. Bolin

2022 Ohio 3777 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2022

In order for the trial court to establish that an Alford plea is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, the court must conduct what is commonly referred to as an “Alford inquiry.” … Initially this Court notes that our standard of review in this matter is not one of abuse of discretion, but rather clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v.

In re A.G.

2014 Ohio 4927 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2014

And, of course, legislatures are free to provide greater constitutional protections than Blockburger provides as long as this intent is clearly shown. … Evidence that the minor committed acts that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult is used only for the purpose of establishing that the minor is delinquent, not to convict him of a crime

State v. Beasley, Unpublished Decision (10-11-2007)

2007 Ohio 5432 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2007

Finally, the judge must then determine if the defendant established purposeful discrimination. … That clearly indicates that the judge overruled the objection.

State v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (11-20-2003)

2003 Ohio 6183 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2003

Appellant does not demon-strate how the outcome of the trial would clearly have been different but for the comment. … We cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Burns-Boggs v. Howerton, Unpublished Decision (8-4-2006)

2006 Ohio 4002 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2006

This claim mischaracterizes the form, which clearly indicates that the statements are limited to the owner's actual knowledge. … Without evidence that Howerton did know or had reason to know, the Boggses failed to establish negligent misrepresentation.

State v. Klafczynski

2020 Ohio 3221 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2020

“[A] defendant cannot establish a due process violation by speculating about the existence, content, and disposition of evidence.” … {¶37} A witness may testify as an expert if: (1) her testimony “either relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispels a misconception common among lay persons;” (2) she “is qualified

State v. Quarterman, Unpublished Decision (7-25-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2001

Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "[t]he smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a search." Id . at syllabus. … Furthermore, once probable cause was established by the smell of marijuana detected by a person qualified to recognize its odor, the officer "may search a validly stopped motor vehicle based upon the well-established automobile

Buckeye Forest Council, Inc. v. Division of Mineral Resources Management

172 Ohio App. 3d 440 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2007

“Rule” does not include any internal management rule of an agency unless the internal management rule affects private rights.’ ” {¶ 18} Under this standard, PPD qualifies as a rule. … These provisions do not mandate establishing a baseline for each spring located on the permit or adjacent areas.”

State v. DeBartolo

2012 Ohio 3449 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2012

Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence. {¶63} DeBartolo further claims that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting state’s witness Jessica Toms, who was qualified … sustains the issue which is to be established before them.

State v. Ginley, 90724 (1-8-2009)

2009 Ohio 30 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 2009

Adams (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 67 , 68 , 538 N.E.2d 1025 , we adopted the rule established in State v. … This defect clearly permeated the defendant's entire criminal proceeding.

State v. Hardesty

2020 Ohio 246 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2020

State’s Exhibit 10. {¶33} The State bears the burden of establishing the proper chain of custody; however, it is not an absolute duty. State v. … While the phlebotomist may not have clearly told Defendant she was drawing the blood for law enforcement purposes, the officer had just asked him for a blood sample and Defendant was present in the room when

State v. Barton

71 Ohio App. 3d 455 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1991

Their testimony established that on Wednesday, August 16, 1989, Howell and her ex-husband’s sister brought Billy to Children’s Hospital Medical Center for an examination of bruises on his buttocks. … Partin was qualified as an expert by experience and training.

State v. Cooperstein

2019 Ohio 4724 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 2019

"The extent and scope of cross-examination clearly fall within the ambit of trial strategy, and debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. … This statement, unrelated to the incident, was offered to establish why C.C. was upset and that she was afraid of appellant.

Ledford v. Board of Zoning Appeals

171 Ohio App. 3d 24 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2007

The trial court explained that under Dayton Revised Code of General Ordinances, §§ 150.183, 150.348, ‘automobile repair garage’ is qualified as either commercial and non-residential, or ‘business and industrial use’ within … Clearly omitted from this list is any work constituting routine maintenance, such as oil changes or minor repairs. {¶ 31} In the present case, the BZA argues that the trial court erred when it found that the Ledfords were

Board of Education of the City School District v. Holding Corp.

29 Ohio App. 2d 114 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 1971

Certain clearly defined rules guide the exercise of the power to review, as indicated in a fairly early decision in Giesy v. *120 Cincinnati, Wilmington & Zanesville Rd. … There is no showing of an abuse of discretion, nor an attempt by appellees or counsel to establish such.