Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At the end of his jury trial for attempted murder, Defendant requested an instruction on the lesser included offenses of assault and aggravated assault but opposed the state's request for an instruction on felonious assault. The trial court provided instructions on all lesser included offenses as requested by both parties. Defendant was found not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of felonious assault. The court of appeals reversed, holding that felonious assault is not a lesser included offense of attempted murder. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court correctly provided the jury with an instruction for felonious assault as a lesser included offense at the close of Defendant's trial, as a charge of attempted murder reasonably puts a defendant on notice that he may be convicted of felonious assault by causing physical harm. View "State v. Deanda" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated burglary, violating a protection order, and resisting arrest. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish that at the time of the altercation he knew there was a protection order in place because the order was not delivered before the offense occurred. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Defendant knew of the order, knew of the risk that his conduct would violate the order, and acted recklessly by disregarding that risk. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that to sustain a conviction for violating a protection order under Ohio Rev. Code 2919.27(A)(2), the State must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it served the defendant with the order before the alleged violation. Remanded. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to rape of a child under thirteen, gross sexual imposition on a child under thirteen, and two counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor. Appellant was sentenced to thirty-one years without the possibility of parole. After Appellant unsuccessfully filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 2006, Appellant filed a second habeas petition in 2012. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law an that the petition was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in finding Appellant's petition barred by res judicata; but (2) the court of appeals acted properly when it concluded that Appellant had an adequate remedy at law, refused to reach the merits, and dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim for habeas relief. View "Billiter v. Banks" on Justia Law

Findlay Market was a public market historically owned and operated by the City of Cincinnati until 2004, when the City and the Corporation for Findlay Market of Cincinnati entered into lease and management agreements under which the Corporation was to manage the market for the city. In this public-records mandamus case, Appellant sought unredacted copies of the lease agreements between the Corporation and merchants who subleased retail space at the market. Appellant received copies of the leases, but the term and rent provisions were redacted by the Corporation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish his entitlement to relief in mandamus for the unredacted leases, as they were trade secrets and not public records. View "State ex rel. Luken v. Corp. for Findlay Market of Cincinnati" on Justia Law

Relator, a trucking company, sought a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) Registrar and the Department of Public Safety Director, to provide an unredacted, noncertified copy of the driving records of the trucking company's employee at cost. This case was consolidated with a direct appeal from the Tenth District Court of Appeals involving the same parties and the same issues but a different driving record. The BMV refused to provide the copies at cost but instead, following the BMV rule, required Relator to specify the basis for its entitlement to an unredacted copy and to pay a $5 fee for a certified copy. Relator claimed it should be able to receive an unredacted copy at cost under the Public Records Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District in one case and denied the writ in the other case, holding (1) the BMV properly promulgated the rule at issue under its rule-making procedure; and (2) therefore, disclosure of the records was prohibited under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and its counterpart in Ohio unless Relator could demonstrate a permissible use. View "State ex rel. Motor Carrier Serv., Inc. v. Rankin" on Justia Law

Appellants filed an original action in mandamus in the court of appeals, arguing that they should be eligible for parole hearings at intervals set by the version of Ohio Adm. Code 5120:1-1-10(B), effective as of January 2, 1979, rather than the current version, which did not become effective until after they were incarcerated. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants had no right to parole or to be considered for parole on a particular date because application of the new parole guidelines to Appellants did not constitute a violation of any protected constitutional or statutory interest, and therefore, they had no clear legal right to relief. View "State ex rel. Richard v. Mohr" on Justia Law

Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming sentencing error in that he was given two separate sentences for what he argued were allied offenses and that he was denied a right to appeal because his initial appeal was dismissed for a procedural failure and two attempted delayed appeals were denied. The court of appeals dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's failure to attach a complete copy of his commitment papers to the petition was fatally defective; and (2) the claims for which Appellant sought relief had no merit because they were not appropriate for review in habeas corpus. View "Jackson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Relator owned and operated a real-estate-appraisal business and used maps and aerial photographs of properties in making his appraisals in Scioto County. In 2011, Relator requested that the Scioto County engineer (Engineer) provide him, at actual cost, a copy of the office's electronic data compilation for maps and aerial photographs of all the property in the County and to provide paper copies of the maps and photographs. Engineer quoted a charge of $2,000 plus the cost of a hard drive for the records. Relator then filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel Engineer to provide copies of the requested records at actual cost. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relator failed to establish his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus, as Engineer supported his charges with his evidence, and Relator failed to submit clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. View "State ex rel. Gambill v. Opperman" on Justia Law

Relator submitted to the attorney general's office a written request for copies of records concerning any communication to that office relating to Danny Bubp's simultaneously holding and exercising the public offices of state representative and mayor's court magistrate. The attorney general's office mailed several pages of responsive documents, but many of the documents were withheld and parts of other documents were redacted based on the claim that they were covered by the attorney-client privilege. Relator subsequently filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel the attorney general's office to provide access to those portions of the requested public records that were withheld. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relator did not establish his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief. The Court also denied Relator's request for statutory damages and attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder and multiple counts of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. Defendant was allegedly one of four men involved in the crimes. As part of the proof to establish Defendant's involvement, the State introduced cell-phone records in an effort to show Defendant's communication with the other co-conspirators and his whereabouts during the morning in question. The appellate court affirmed, holding that even if the admission of the cell-phone records was in violation of Appellant's right to confront witnesses against him, any error was harmless. Defendant appealed, arguing that the cell-phone records were inadmissible as business records without proper authentication. In this motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding (1) the admission of the cell-phone records was unconstitutional under the Confrontation Clause because the records were not authenticated as business records; but (2) the admission of the records was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Hood" on Justia Law