Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves S.Y.C., who appealed the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissing her petition for writs of procedendo and mandamus against Judge Alison L. Floyd of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. S.Y.C. sought to compel rulings on motions pending before Judge Floyd, who was overseeing the child-custody cases involving S.Y.C., her former partner, and their two children. The Eighth District dismissed S.Y.C.’s petition as moot, finding that Judge Floyd had disposed of the motions.The case originated in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and was transferred to Cuyahoga County in 2016. It involved multiple appeals, petitions for extraordinary writs, and affidavits of disqualification. S.Y.C. filed a petition for writs of procedendo and mandamus in the Eighth District, alleging that Judge Floyd had failed to rule on “at least seven” pending motions filed between April 2021 and August 2022. Judge Floyd filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that S.Y.C.’s petition was moot as the motions identified in S.Y.C.’s petition had been ruled on or withdrawn or were not a motion and therefore did not require a decision from the court.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Eighth District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing S.Y.C.’s petition for writs of procedendo and mandamus as moot. The court found that Judge Floyd had ruled on all the motions that were the subject of the petition, rendering moot S.Y.C.’s petition. The court also rejected S.Y.C.’s other arguments about Judge Floyd’s rulings, noting that S.Y.C. was essentially seeking an appellate review of Judge Floyd’s judgments, which is not the purpose of either procedendo or mandamus. View "State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd" on Justia Law

The case involves a divorce proceeding initiated by Jolene K. Makuch against John Makuch III in the Geauga County Common Pleas Court. Jolene represented herself, stating she could not afford representation. After the trial, the magistrate noted that Jolene had failed to provide evidence regarding the division of marital property, spousal or child support, or attorney fees. The magistrate ordered a hearing for the parties to present additional evidence on these matters. John objected to the magistrate's decision, challenging the order for a hearing to present additional evidence.The Common Pleas Court, presided over by Judge Carolyn J. Paschke, overruled John's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. The court noted that the parties had failed to present sufficient evidence at trial regarding the nature, extent, and value of the marital property, their income, and debts. The court set a future hearing date for the parties to present complete evidence on these matters. John appealed this decision to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals dismissed John's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, determining that Judge Paschke's entry was not a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B). The court explained that in a divorce action, no final appealable order exists until all issues relating to property division, support, and parental rights and responsibilities have been addressed. John then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to accept jurisdiction in this discretionary appeal filed on behalf of John. The court found the appeal to be frivolous, as it was neither warranted by existing law nor supported by a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. The court denied John's motions for clarification and for leave to file a supplemental brief. The court also declined to impose sanctions on John's counsel, who had previously been declared to be vexatious litigators. View "Makuch v. Makuch" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a criminal defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendant, Eli Carter, was found guilty of having sexual relations with his adopted daughter. He argued that his right to face-to-face confrontation was violated because the trial court allowed a witness to testify remotely via video conference.The trial court had allowed the remote testimony due to the witness's unavailability to testify in person due to unpredictable winter weather and uncertain airline schedules. The court also noted the state's identification of the witness as important and found his testimony relevant and admissible. The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the remote testimony violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.The Third District Court of Appeals rejected the defendant's arguments and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court of appeals noted that the trial court had found that airline-labor shortages and other causes were creating unprecedented travel delays. The court further stated that even if it were to assume that the possibility of inclement weather was insufficient to warrant an exception for the witness's video testimony, the trial court's determinations were justified on a case-specific finding based on an important public policy involving the COVID pandemic.The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed that the trial court erred by allowing the remote testimony. The court held that the trial court's generalized concerns about COVID-19 risks and travel delays did not constitute a "case-specific finding of necessity," sufficient to abridge the defendant's right to face-to-face confrontation. However, the court also concluded that the trial court's error was harmless given the remaining evidence at trial. The court found that there was no reasonable possibility that the witness's testimony contributed anything to the jury's findings of guilt that it could not have gleaned from other witnesses. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals, albeit on different grounds than those relied upon by that court. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Ohio dealt with an appeal made by an inmate, Albert Townsend Sr., against the Eighth District Court of Appeals' decision denying his complaint for a writ of mandamus. Townsend was previously convicted on several counts of rape and kidnapping, leading to a sentence of 56 years to life in prison and classification as a sexually violent predator. The court of appeals had deemed his sentence faulty concerning two of his victims and remanded the case for resentencing on eight of the counts.In Townsend's mandamus complaint, he alleged entitlement to a resentencing hearing and claimed he should have received the benefit of a purported plea deal offered by the state. However, the court of appeals dismissed his complaint, noting that he had not complied with R.C. 2969.25(C), which mandates an inmate seeking a waiver of the court's filing fee to submit an affidavit of indigency that includes a certified statement of the balance in the inmate's institutional account for the past six months. The court of appeals noted that Townsend's complaint was defective due to noncompliance with this requirement.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals' decision. They noted that Townsend had indeed failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) and that his provided account statement was neither certified by the institutional cashier nor covered the required six-month period. As Townsend did not argue his compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) in his appeal, the Supreme Court found no grounds for reversal of the lower court's judgment. View "State ex rel. Townsend v. Gaul" on Justia Law

The case centers on an appeal by the appellant, Gudonavon J. Taylor, who petitioned for a writ of prohibition against the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court). Taylor argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to convict him of and sentence him for felony murder in 2010. He claimed that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him on one of his murder counts. The Second District Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, and Taylor appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the decision of the Second District Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction to convict Taylor of felony murder under R.C. 2903.02(B). Even if Taylor's claim that he could not have committed a predicate offense necessary for the conviction was correct, this would have been an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, not in the lack of it. As Taylor was unable to demonstrate that the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction, he was not entitled to a writ of prohibition. The court also denied Taylor's request for oral argument. View "State ex rel. Taylor v. Montgomery Cty. Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

The case involves James W. Jones, who was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 60 months for offenses under three separate indictments. These convictions included trafficking marijuana, having weapons while under a disability, and operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The trial court imposed two 30-month prison sentences to be served consecutively for his convictions on trafficking marijuana and having weapons while under a disability. Jones appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the trial court had made the necessary findings for imposing consecutive prison sentences, as required by Ohio law. Specifically, the court cited Jones's extensive criminal history and evidence that he continued to commit crimes while awaiting trial or sentencing for previous crimes. The court also noted that the harm caused by Jones's crimes was so great that no single prison term adequately reflected the seriousness of his conduct. Furthermore, the court found that Jones posed a danger to the public, making consecutive sentences necessary to protect the public from future crime.The court concluded that the trial court's findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record, in line with the review standard set by Ohio law. Therefore, the court upheld the lower court's decision to impose consecutive sentences. The court emphasized that the trial court was not required to state reasons to support its findings, nor was it required to recite the statutory language verbatim, provided the necessary findings could be found in the record and were incorporated into the sentencing entry. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed a decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeals concerning the right to a jury trial in a civil case. The case arose from a dispute between the Estate of Tomlinson and Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc., regarding the installation of a swimming pool and a deck. The plaintiff, Tomlinson, filed a lawsuit and demanded a jury trial, paying a $500 jury deposit as required by a local rule. Later, Tomlinson withdrew her request for a jury trial, but Mega Pool still wanted a jury trial.The trial court and the Fifth District Court of Appeals held that Mega Pool had waived its right to a jury trial because it had not paid a $500 jury deposit, as required by the local rule. The Supreme Court of Ohio disagreed, ruling that the local rule did not require each party seeking a jury trial to pay a separate deposit. The court also held that, under Civ.R. 38(D), a party may not unilaterally withdraw a jury demand without the consent of all the parties.The court noted that Tomlinson's attempt to withdraw her jury demand without Mega Pool's consent violated Civ.R. 38(D). As such, the court reversed the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Estate of Tomlinson v. Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Ohio was called upon to interpret the definition of "motor vehicle" as it applied to the crime of aggravated vehicular assault. The defendant, Joshua Fork, was charged with multiple counts, including aggravated vehicular assault, after driving a Polaris under the influence of alcohol and injuring his passengers. At issue was whether the Polaris should be classified as a "motor vehicle" or a "utility vehicle."The Court ruled that the definition of "motor vehicle" in R.C. 4501.01(B), which applies to penal laws, should be used in the context of aggravated vehicular assault. It also held that the Polaris should be classified as a "utility vehicle," as defined by R.C. 4501.01(VV), based on its principal purpose, not its use at the time of the incident.The Court reasoned that the principal purpose of the Polaris, as shown by evidence and testimony, was for farm-related activities, such as hauling rocks and bags of seed, removing limbs, pulling a sprayer, and trimming trees. The Polaris's ancillary use for recreation did not affect its principal purpose.The Court concluded that, since the Polaris fit the definition of a "utility vehicle" under R.C. 4501.01(VV), the evidence admitted at trial was legally insufficient to support Fork’s convictions for aggravated vehicular assault. Consequently, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals, which had reversed the trial court's judgment and vacated Fork’s convictions for aggravated vehicular assault. View "State v. Fork" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the relator, Kimani Ware, an inmate, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI”), and several of its employees, to respond to six of his public-records requests, and to award him statutory damages and court costs.Concerning each of the six requests, the respondents argued that they were not required to provide the requested records because Ware did not identify them as formal public-records requests. The court disagreed, stating that the Public Records Act does not require a requester to formally label a request as a “formal public records request”.Regarding the May 29, 2021 and October 6, 2021 requests, the court denied Ware's writ and the request for statutory damages, as the respondents had provided evidence that they provided the requested records. However, for the June 3, 2022 and June 19, 2022 requests, the court granted the writ and awarded Ware $1,000 in statutory damages for each request, as the respondents did not provide the requested documents.As for the June 5, 2022 and July 23, 2022 requests, the writ and the request for statutory damages were denied since Ware did not submit these two requests to the proper records custodians.Lastly, the court denied respondents’ motion to declare Ware a vexatious litigator, stating that respondents had not shown that Ware has “habitually, persistently, and without reasonable cause engage[d] in frivolous conduct". View "State ex rel. Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr." on Justia Law

Thomas E. Knuff Jr. was convicted on two counts of aggravated murder with death specifications for killing John Mann and Regina Capobianco. Knuff was released from prison and arranged to stay with Mann. After his release, he began staying at a motel, paid for by a former prison employee, Alicia Stoner, with whom he had a relationship while incarcerated. When his parole officer discovered he was not living at the motel as he claimed, he moved in with Mann. Mann was not living alone; Regina Capobianco also lived there. Knuff and Capobianco had a complicated relationship, and conflict arose between them, which led to the murders.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed Knuff's convictions and the imposition of the death sentences, finding that none of the 24 arguments that he presented justified a reversal. Among other things, the court found that the trial court did not err in denying Knuff’s motion for self-representation, which was made just eight days before jury selection began. The court also rejected Knuff’s claim that the trial court improperly restricted his counsel’s voir dire questioning, thereby denying him a meaningful, constitutionally adequate voir dire. The court additionally found that the trial court did not err in overruling Knuff’s challenges for cause of various jurors, or in granting the prosecution's for-cause challenges.The court also found that the trial court's error in giving the jury a duty-to-retreat instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court rejected Knuff’s claim that the jury’s finding of guilt for the aggravated-murder counts, felony-murder specifications, and underlying felony offenses was based on insufficient evidence and that his convictions for those offenses were against the manifest weight of the evidence. View "State v. Knuff" on Justia Law