Case law

State v. Stafford

2017 Ohio 7118 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2017

Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 825, 126 S.Ct. 2266 ("statements made unwittingly to a Government informant" are "clearly nontestimonial"). "[T]he Confrontation Clause bars only the admission of 'testimonial' hearsay. … "If testimony qualifies as nonhearsay," such as the case here, "it does not implicate the Confrontation Clause." State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 186.

State v. Petty, 2007ca00050 (11-17-2008)

2008 Ohio 5962 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2008

In order to prevail under a plain error analysis, appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the error. Long. … T. at 23. {¶ 107} We find sufficient credible evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the crime of tampering with evidence.

State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc.

239 N.E.3d 1049 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2024

In Hamilton, however, it was found that the first factor was not met “because the legislature did not clearly express an intent for the new language [in the statute] to apply retroactively.” Id. at ¶ 28. … The court found that the former settlement hearing provisions represented a “course of procedure” in that “[t]hey existed as part of the process by which Kilbane, upon qualifying for compensation, enforced her right to receive

State v. Brown

2017 Ohio 678 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2017

2011-Ohio-3383, 2011 WL 2640236, ¶ 23, to stand for the proposition that “an explanation of circumstances is not satisfied by a presumption that the [trial] court was aware of facts”). {¶13} In this case, Brown clearly … qualified the plea he tendered to the court and did not engage in any conduct that would signal to the court that Brown had an intention to waive the explanation of circumstances requirement.

Combs v. Black, Unpublished Decision (5-16-2006)

2006 Ohio 2439 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 16, 2006

The trial court ruled earlier in the case that emotional distress did not qualify as bodily injury under the terms of the insurance policy. … The trial court rendered a judgment on June 20, 2004 that emotional distress did not qualify as bodily injury.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Stocks

98 N.E.3d 1217 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2017

That market value is clearly inflated and as such is a [telltale] sign of predatory lending.” … Bank asserts that “Craft based her statement on her review of the JPMorgan Chase payment history, which she properly authenticated and established as a business record. * * * The payment history clearly supports Craft’

State v. Grant, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2006)

2006 Ohio 177 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2006

The State counters that the evidence established that the victim was substantially impaired by the physical condition of being asleep. … Applying these definitions, sleep qualifies as a mental or physical condition. It is well settled that sleeping qualifies as a substantial impairment. I.e., Byrd, supra; State v. Tolliver (July 31, 1997), Cuyahoga App.

State v. Marshall

31 Ohio Law. Abs. 382 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1940

Myers, and after preliminary qualifying questions inquired of each of them respecting the general reputation of the defendant in the community for being peaceable, quiet and a law abiding citizen. … But this in nowise changes the rule of law which is clearly applicable to the factual situation presented and controlling upon a reviewing court. Similar situations have developed times without number.

State v. Gonzalez

154 Ohio App. 3d 9 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2003

Riegler testified that Gonzalez was experiencing several life-threatening illnesses caused by his weakened immune system. … Even if the medical records and the medical testimony had been properly excluded from evidence, the state could still have called any number of witnesses, such as Gonzalez’s sister or ex-girlfriend, to establish that Gonzalez

State v. Speis

2023 Ohio 1422 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 2023

The Court held that the defendant's silence could be used as evidence against him because he did not clearly and unambiguously invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. … The Court pointedly stated that "the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be 'compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself'; it does not establish an unqualified 'right to remain silent.'"

Phelps v. Swift, Unpublished Decision (4-10-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2001

Civ.R. 56(E) clearly provides that affidavits must be based upon a factual nature and that the affiant must have personal knowledge to testify to the matters attested to in the affidavits. … Swift met his initial summary judgment burden by establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to all of appellant's claims.

Roe v. Heap, Unpublished Decision (5-11-2004)

2004 Ohio 2504 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 11, 2004

In other words, the trial court found that the e-mail messages were protected by a qualified privilege. … (Indeed, the trial court specifically states that a qualified privilege protects appellees' communications.) {¶ 62} The defense of qualified privilege was set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Hahn v.

State v. Latham, Unpublished Decision (7-12-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 1999

Furthermore, to qualify as interrogation express questioning or its functional equivalent must occur which the law enforcement officer knows is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Rhode Island v. … Thus, the questions asked of appellant additionally do not qualify as interrogation as anticipated by the court.

State v. Mays

2012 Ohio 838 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2012

This limitation “precludes certain particularly dangerous felonies–the archetype is assault with a deadly weapon–from qualifying [as the underlying felony].” Id. … First, the reviewing court must determine “whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Kalish at ¶ 4. Here we conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences is not unlawful.

State ex rel. Phlipot v. Doug Smith Farms

2024 Ohio 5820 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2024

An SHO found no violation, determining that the spindle-starting lever qualified as an acceptable means of disengaging the machine from its power supply under Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-05(D)(1) because it started and stopped … The VSSR was clearly established unless the honorable court engages in a tortuous interpretation of what a power supply is. We are not willing to do so. State ex rel. Hina v. Indus.

State v. Jones

2012 Ohio 5334 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2012

After that, Appellant wrote that he would probably be released a few months later and would qualify for disability benefits. … Clearly, Dr. Sherman found that Appellant did not meet the test for not guilty by reason of insanity.

State v. Harris

227 N.E.3d 510 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 2023

Accordingly, the state established that Mr. … (See Brief of Cross-Appellant at 38-40.) {¶ 107} Generally, “[t]he extent and scope of cross-examination clearly fall within the ambit of trial strategy, and debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance

State v. Stores, Unpublished Decision (3-22-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1999

The State established the elements set forth in State v. … issue which is to be established before them.

In re V.J.P.

2021 Ohio 1778 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 24, 2021

However, he has established a bond with his caregivers, with whom he has resided since his release from the hospital. … The testimony and documentary evidence described above establishes that Ms. Gore and Mr.

State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co.

143 N.E.3d 614 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2020

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ESTABLISHED THAT THE TAKING WAS NECESSARY. {¶16} “III. … “We have recognized that to qualify as final and appealable, a trial court's order must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2505.02, and if the action involves multiple claims and/or multiple parties and the order does not