Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Tommy Glover committed a series of armed robberies and kidnappings in May and June 2020, resulting in his convictions for 11 first-degree felonies and six gun specifications. Glover's crimes involved holding victims at gunpoint, forcing them to withdraw money from ATMs, and causing significant emotional trauma. The trial court sentenced Glover to an aggregate term of 60 years in prison, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently.The First District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's sentence, finding it disproportionate to Glover's criminal history, the danger he posed, and the offenses committed. The appellate court modified Glover's sentences to run concurrently, resulting in a reduced aggregate sentence of 25 years. The court of appeals based its decision on the lack of physical harm to the victims and compared Glover's sentence to those in other cases involving both physical and emotional harm.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that the appellate court erred in its analysis. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate-review statute limits the appellate court's review to whether the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including the severe emotional harm inflicted on the victims and Glover's lack of remorse. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and reinstated the trial court's original sentence of 60 years. View "State v. Glover" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of relators seeking to place a proposed constitutional amendment titled "Ohio Voters Bill of Rights" before Ohio voters. The relators submitted the text and a summary of their proposed amendment to the Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, for certification. The Attorney General refused to certify the summary, arguing that the title "Ohio Voters Bill of Rights" was not a fair and truthful statement of the proposed amendment.Previously, the relators had submitted their petition with a different title, "Secure and Fair Elections," which the Attorney General also rejected for similar reasons. The relators revised their petition and resubmitted it with the new title, but the Attorney General again refused to certify it, focusing solely on the title's perceived inaccuracy.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court determined that the Attorney General's authority under R.C. 3519.01(A) is limited to examining the summary of a proposed constitutional amendment, not its title. The court found that the Attorney General exceeded his statutory authority by rejecting the petition based on the title. The court noted that the statutory scheme differentiates between a "summary" and a "title," and the Attorney General's duty is to review only the summary.The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a limited writ of mandamus, ordering the Attorney General to examine the summary of the relators' proposed amendment within ten days, determine whether it is a fair and truthful statement, and, if so, certify and forward the petition to the Ohio Ballot Board. The court emphasized that the Attorney General must perform his statutory duty without considering the title of the proposed amendment. View "State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost" on Justia Law

Two men opened fire at a party, killing one person and wounding eight others. James Echols was identified as one of the shooters. While in jail awaiting trial, Echols allegedly threatened the State’s principal witness and wrote a letter suggesting harm to the witness’s wife. The trial court admitted evidence of these acts at Echols’s trial, along with other evidence of his participation in the crime. Echols was convicted.The First District Court of Appeals affirmed Echols’s conviction, finding that the witness-intimidation evidence was properly admitted to show Echols’s consciousness of guilt. Echols argued that the trial court should have analyzed the evidence as “other acts” evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) and followed the analytical framework outlined in State v. Hartman. The appellate court did not explicitly perform an Evid.R. 404(B) analysis but concluded that the evidence was admissible.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and agreed that the witness-intimidation evidence constituted other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B). The court found no error in the admission of this evidence, as it was relevant for a nonpropensity purpose—showing Echols’s consciousness of guilt. The court also determined that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. The court affirmed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals. View "State v. Echols" on Justia Law

A man named Alonzo Kyles was indicted for animal cruelty after police found a cat soaked in bleach in an apartment building's basement stairwell. Kyles admitted to pouring bleach to scare the cat away because he was afraid of cats. The cat had red and swollen paws, no collar, and was unclaimed by anyone in the building. The cat was taken to an animal hospital where a veterinarian treated it for ulcerations, a common symptom of bleach exposure. Kyles was found guilty of animal cruelty and sentenced to nine months in jail.The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed Kyles's conviction. The court held that the statute under which Kyles was convicted, R.C. 959.131(C), required the State to prove that the cat was a "companion animal." The court interpreted the statute to mean that only dogs and cats that are "kept" qualify as companion animals. Since the State did not provide sufficient evidence that the cat was "kept," the court found the conviction unsupported by sufficient evidence.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Eighth District's decision. The court held that R.C. 959.131(C) protects all dogs and cats, not just those that are "kept." The court emphasized that the statute's language includes "any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept," meaning the protection extends to all dogs and cats without regard to their living situation. The case was remanded to the Eighth District Court of Appeals to consider Kyles's remaining arguments. View "State v. Kyles" on Justia Law

A juvenile court judge in Hamilton County, Ohio, presided over the trial of a thirteen-year-old accused of felonious assault. The judge found the juvenile not delinquent and sealed the case record under Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 2151.356(B)(1)(d). After the juvenile was later killed, the Cincinnati Enquirer requested the trial transcript, which the judge denied, citing the statute.The Cincinnati Enquirer challenged the constitutionality of R.C. 2151.356, arguing that the Ohio Constitution's open courts provision prohibits sealing court records without an individualized determination balancing the interests of the juvenile and the public. The juvenile court judge argued that the open courts provision does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, relying on precedent from the Ohio Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the open courts provision of the Ohio Constitution applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings. The court determined that R.C. 2151.356 is unconstitutional because it mandates the sealing of records without an individualized balancing of interests. The court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the juvenile court judge to provide access to the trial transcript and a writ of prohibition preventing the enforcement of the sealing order. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bloom" on Justia Law

A property developer settled claims with the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and sought to assert a state-law claim for contribution against other companies involved in developing the properties. The developer, Epcon Communities Franchising, L.L.C., alleged that the franchisees, including Wilcox Development Group, L.L.C., failed to comply with the FHA in their construction and design of certain properties.The trial court dismissed the case, not on the grounds argued by Wilcox, but on the theory that if a state-law cause of action for contribution existed, it was preempted by federal law. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, and Epcon appealed the preemption issue to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and determined that the trial court erred in deciding the case on the basis of federal preemption. The court emphasized principles of judicial restraint, noting that no party had argued for federal preemption and that courts should avoid deciding constitutional questions unless necessary. The court also highlighted that the preemption issue was hypothetical and should not have been addressed without first determining whether a state-law contribution claim was available.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether the facts alleged present a claim for relief under Ohio law. The court did not address the preemption issue, as it was not properly presented by the parties and was unnecessary to resolve at this stage. View "Epcon Communities Franchising, L.L.C. v. Wilcox Dev. Group, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case involves a group of relators seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Lorain County Board of Elections to place a zoning-amendment referendum on the November 5, 2024, general-election ballot. The relators had filed a referendum petition against a municipal ordinance that rezoned approximately 300 acres of property. However, the Board of Elections sustained a protest by intervening respondents, DBR Commercial Realty, L.L.C., and Kathryn Craig, and removed the referendum from the ballot, arguing that the relators failed to file a complete certified copy of the ordinance as required by R.C. 731.32.The relators initially received what they claimed were incomplete copies of the ordinance from the clerk of the Vermilion City Council. Despite knowing the copies were incomplete, they attempted to correct the deficiencies themselves by adding missing pages from the county recorder’s office. However, the copy they filed with the finance director was still missing two pages. The Board of Elections held a protest hearing and concluded that the relators did not strictly comply with R.C. 731.32, which requires a complete certified copy of the ordinance to be filed before circulating a referendum petition.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and upheld the Board of Elections' decision. The court emphasized that R.C. 731.32 requires strict compliance, and the relators' failure to file a complete certified copy of the ordinance rendered their petition defective. The court denied the writ of mandamus, stating that the Board did not abuse its discretion or disregard applicable law in sustaining the protest and removing the referendum from the ballot. The court also denied various motions to strike evidence and for oral argument, but granted the relators' motion to amend the case caption. View "State ex rel. Brill v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The case involves the Ohio Democratic Party and two voters, Norman Wernet and Eric Duffy, who filed a mandamus action against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose. They sought to compel LaRose to rescind Directive 2024-21, which requires individuals delivering absentee ballots for family members or disabled voters to complete an attestation at the board of elections and prohibits returning such ballots to a drop box. The directive aims to prevent "ballot harvesting" and ensure the integrity and security of absentee ballot delivery.Previously, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled in League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose that certain Ohio laws limiting who can return absentee ballots for disabled voters were preempted by the federal Voting Rights Act. Following this, LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 and later Directive 2024-24 and Advisory 2024-03, which provided additional guidance but did not substantially alter the original directive.The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the relators' claims were barred by laches due to their unreasonable delay in filing the complaint. The court noted that the directive was issued on August 31, but the complaint was not filed until September 27, a 24-day delay. This delay was deemed unreasonable, especially given the time-sensitive nature of election-related matters. The court also found that the delay caused material prejudice to the Secretary of State and county boards of elections, as absentee voting had already begun, and changing the procedures at this stage would lead to voter confusion and administrative burdens.The Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus based on laches and did not address the merits of the relators' claims. The court also denied the motion to intervene filed by the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party but accepted their brief as an amici curiae brief. View "State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose" on Justia Law

In this case, the relator, Marcell Strbich, sought a writ of mandamus against the Montgomery County Board of Elections and its members. Strbich claimed that the board failed to provide proper training to precinct election officials regarding the use of unacceptable forms of photo identification, including IDs issued to noncitizens. He requested the court to compel the board to provide this training in accordance with Ohio law and a directive issued by the Secretary of State.The case was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The evidence showed that before the evening of September 25, the board did not provide the required training to precinct election officials. Similarly, before September 29, the board did not provide the required training to voting-location managers. The board later updated its training materials and began providing the necessary training from the evening of September 25 for precinct election officials and from September 29 for voting-location managers. The board also planned to email the updated training materials to those who had not received the proper training.The Supreme Court of Ohio found that the case was moot for precinct election officials who attended training on or after the evening of September 25 and for voting-location managers who attended training on or after September 29. However, the case was not moot for those who attended training before these dates. The court granted a writ of mandamus in part, ordering the board to provide the required training to the affected individuals. The board could comply by emailing the updated training materials to these individuals. The writ was denied as moot for those who had already received the updated training. View "State ex rel. Strbich v. Montgomery County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

Plain-clothes detectives from the Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force observed Terrance Cunningham, a known suspected drug trafficker, driving a minivan. They relayed this information to Detective Benjamin Martens, who confirmed that Cunningham did not have a valid driver’s license. Detective Martens located the minivan in a convenience store parking lot, where Cunningham was standing next to the vehicle and Katrina Hale, the passenger, was exiting the store. When questioned, Cunningham claimed Hale was the driver. Hale, appearing nervous, was detained by Detective Martens, who subsequently searched her purses and found methamphetamines.The Licking County Common Pleas Court found that Hale was no longer a passenger when detained and granted her motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, including her statements and the contents of her purses. The court reasoned that since Hale was not in the vehicle at the time of the stop, the detention was unjustified. However, the court did not address whether the search of Hale’s purses was justified independently of her detention.The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that Hale remained a passenger and could be detained for the duration of the stop. The appellate court found that the evolving circumstances justified extending the stop and that the search of Hale’s purses was valid under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding that Detective Martens had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain Hale as part of the investigatory stop. The court found that Hale’s actions and admissions during the stop provided sufficient grounds for her detention. However, the court did not address the constitutionality of the search of Hale’s purses, as Hale did not develop this argument in her appeal. View "State v. Hale" on Justia Law