Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that where Defendant was previously convicted of child endangering in connection with the death of his child and then, after his release from prison, Defendant told authorities that he had beaten his son to death, the prohibition against double jeopardy did not prevent the state from prosecuting Defendant for murder or aggravated murder.Defendant originally told authorities that he had accidentally caused his son's death while driving an ATV. Defendant was charged with child endangering and involuntary manslaughter. Defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby he pled guilty to child endangering, and the involuntary manslaughter charge was dismissed. After Defendant served his time in prison, he confessed that he had beaten the child to death and fabricated the ATV accident. Defendant was then indicted for aggravated murder and murder. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the murder charges, asserting that involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder and aggravated murder and that the state was thus barred from prosecuting the charges. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that double jeopardy principles did not bar Defendant's prosecution. View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court overruling Defendant's motion to suppress evidence relating to a traffic stop, holding that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop.In affirming the trial court, the court of appeals determined that the discrepancy between the color in the vehicle's registration and the actual color of the vehicle was sufficient to raise the officer's suspicion to that vehicle was either stolen or that the license plate had been taken from another vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when a police officer encounters a vehicle that is painted a different color from the color listed in the vehicle registration records and the officer believes that the vehicle or its license plates may be stolen, the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity and is authorized to perform an investigative traffic stop. View "State v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's order permanently enjoining enforcement of Ohio Rev. Code 9.75, which prohibits a public authority from requiring that contractors on public-improvement projects employ a specific number or percentage of the public authority's residents, holding that section 9.75 is a general law and prevails over local laws.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order permanently enjoining enforcement of section 9.75, holding that Ohio Const. art. II, 34 did not authorize the General Assembly to infringe on the City of Cleveland's municipal home-rule authority under Ohio Const. art. XVIII, 3 to impose city-residency preferences in Cleveland's public-improvement contracts. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court to dissolve the injunction, holding that the statute provides for the comfort and general welfare of all Ohio construction employees and therefore supersedes conflicting local ordinances. View "Cleveland v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by six Williams County electors (Relators) to compel the Williams County Board of Elections and its members to place a petition for a proposed county charter on the November 5, 2019 ballot, holding that Relators had an adequate remedy at law.The Board found that Relators' proposal did not comply with Ohio Const. art. X, 3, which governs county-charter proposals, and determined that the proposal was invalid. In this original action, Relators argued that the Board impermissibly examined the substance of the proposed charter when it should have determined only the sufficiency and validity of the petition and signatures. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relators failed to show that initial review by a court of common pleas, following by an appeal of right to a court of appeals, afforded them an inadequate remedy at law. View "State ex rel. Fleming v. Fox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Appellee's motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the trial court erred in denying Appellee's motion without considering the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and applied in the immigration context but that the court of appeals' remand order for a full evidentiary hearing was premature.In his motion, Appellee claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his pleas. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed and remanded to the trial court to conduct a hearing, concluding that the trial court erred by denying the motion without deciding whether counsel properly advised Appellee. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the matter to the trial court for application of the proper standard, holding that the trial court erred in denying Appellee's motion without considering the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland and applied in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). View "State v. Romero" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress a handgun and other evidence obtained during a Terry stop, holding that the stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.After hearing the sound of gunshots, two police officers drove to the area where the shots seemed to be coming from. With their guns drawn, the officers detained Defendant, the only person in the area. The officers patted Defendant down and retrieved a handgun from his jacket. Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to perform an investigative stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant and did not convert the stop into an arrest by approaching Defendant with their weapons drawn. View "State v. Hairston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence of Appellant, who murdered his mother, but reversed an aggravated robbery charge against him that was used as one of three specifications supporting the prosecution’s effort to seek the death penalty.The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) no prejudicial error occurred during jury selection; (3) the trial court erred in admitting certain other acts evidence, but the errors were harmless; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument; (5) Defendant’s sentence was appropriate; (6) any error on the part of defense counsel during the penalty phase was harmless; (7) cumulative errors did not render Defendant’s trial unfair; and (8) the evidence failed to support the finding that Defendant “deprived” the victim of property or that Defendant’s “purpose” was to deprive the victim of the property at issue. View "State v. Tench" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Unitde States District Court by holding that Ohio Rev. Code 4123.35(O) is not unconstitutional as applied to the tort claims of an enrolled subcontractor’s employee who is injured while working on a self-insured construction project and whose injury is compensable under Ohio’s workers’ compensation laws.Daniel Stolz was injured while working as a concrete finisher for Jostin Construction. Jostin was a subcontractor of Messer Construction Company, the general contractor for the project. Under section 4123.35(O), Messer provided workers’ compensation coverage on the project for employees of subcontractors like Jostin that chose to enroll in Messer’s self-insurance plan. Stolz eventually sued Messer and several subcontractors for negligence. Messer and three enrolled subcontractors argued that they were immune from liability under section 4123.35(O). The Supreme Court concluded that the statute provides immunity to both general contractors and enrolled subcontractors from tort claims brought by employees of other enrolled subcontractors. Stolz later amended his complaint to allege that section 4123.35(O) is unconstitutional. The enrolled subcontractors petitioned the district court to certify a question of state law to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that section 4123.35(O) does not violate the Ohio Constitution’s right-to-remedy, right-to-jury, or equal-protection provisions. View "Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant’s conviction and discharging him from further prosecution after the trial court accepted Defendant’s plea of no contest to a charge of cruelty to animals and finding Defendant guilty but neglecting to ask for an explanation of the circumstances, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar Defendant’s retrial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to obtain an explanation of the circumstances before finding him guilty. The court of appeals agreed, reversed Defendant’s conviction and, reasoning that the reversal was based on insufficient evidence, concluded that jeopardy had attached and barred further proceedings against Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the reversal of Defendant’s conviction was not based on insufficiency of the evidence, but, rather, on a procedural error; and (2) therefore, the double jeopardy protection did not bar Defendant’s retrial. View "Girard v. Giordano" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed Appellant’s petition for failure to attach the statement of his inmate account that is required by Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C).The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Appellant’s petition due to his failure to abide by the mandatory filing requirements of section 2969.25. On appeal, Appellant argued that the Court should excuse his noncompliance with the technical requirements of the statute and challenged the constitutionality of the statute on its face and as applied. The Supreme Court rejected Appellant’s arguments on appeal, holding that Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed. View "Rogers v. Eppinger" on Justia Law