Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In July 2010, a grand jury returned a 73-count indictment charging several current and former public officials and three organizations with criminal charges. In December 2010, the county court of common pleas judge granted the Cafaro defendants' motion to seal a bills of particulars and notices of intent to introduce "other acts" evidence. Relators, a newspaper and television station, filed this writ of mandamus to compel the judge to release all records in the criminal case and a writ of prohibition to vacate the December 2010 order. The Cafaro defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. In July 2011, the indictment was dismissed. In August 2011 the judge unsealed many of the sealed filings but granted the Cafaro defendants' motion to seal a discussion of facts in the state's memorandum in opposition to the Cafaro defendants' motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus to compel the judge to release all remaining records that were sealed and granted the writ of prohibition to compel the judge to vacate his December 2010 and August 2011 decisions and to prohibit him from issuing further orders presumptively sealing any documents or records in the criminal case. View "State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel Appellees, the court of common pleas judge and the common pleas court, to issue a valid, final judgment in one of his criminal cases and to vacate his sentence in another of his criminal cases. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's sentencing entries constituted final, appealable orders; (2) the sentences Appellant challenged complied with Ohio R. Crim. P. 32(C) by specifying that Appellant was convicted upon his no-contest pleas; and (3) insofar as Appellant argued that one of his sentences was erroneous because there was no authorization for consecutive six-month jail sentences, Appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. View "State ex rel. Culgan v. Common Pleas Court (Kimbler)" on Justia Law

Appellee, together with four codefendants, was indicted for murder, aggravated robbery, involuntary manslaughter, and theft. The defendants' initial convictions were reversed due to a Batson violation. On retrial, the trial court declared a mistrial. The state proceeded to retry three of the defendants, including Appellant, and a third jury returned verdicts finding them guilty of all charges. The court of appeals again reversed their convictions. In Appellee's case, the court held (1) the trial court should have declared a mistrial after the second trial because a statement of a state's witness from a previous trial, which had not been admitted into evidence, had inadvertently been submitted to the jury; and (2) double jeopardy barred retrial because there had not been a manifest necessity for the mistrial declared at the second trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals to the extent that it held the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial, holding (1) the trial judge erred during the second trial by improperly declaring a mistrial; and (2) the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the retrial of Appellee. View "State v. Gunnell" on Justia Law

The issue presented in this appeal was whether the filing of a pretrial motion to suppress by a co-defendant automatically tolls the time within which a defendant must be brought to trial. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions of aggravated robbery and felonious assault, concluding that Defendant was timely tried on those charges, as the time to bring Defendant to trial was tolled when his co-defendant filed a pretrial motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the time in which to bring Defendant to trial was not automatically tolled when his co-defendant filed pretrial motions to suppress. Remanded for the court of appeals to determine whether the setting of the trial date beyond the statutory time was reasonable. View "State v. Ramey" on Justia Law

This case was a public-records action in which relator, ESPN, Inc., sought certain records from respondent, Ohio State University. Ohio State rejected ESPN's requests because the university deemed them to be "overly broad per Ohio's public record laws." EPSN then filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel Ohio State to provide access to the requested records. The Supreme Court (1) granted the writ for limited records that should have been disclosed because they were not exempt from disclosure based on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA); but (2) denied the writ for the rest of the records because Ohio State established that FERPA and the attorney-client privilege prohibited the disclosure of the requested records. View "State ex rel. ESPN, Inc. v. Ohio State Univ." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Maxwell White was convicted of aggravated murder with capital specifications and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. White subsequently obtained federal habeas corpus relief from his death sentence, obliging the trial court to resentence him. Before the federal court invalidated White's death sentence but after White killed the trooper, the Legislature enacted Ohio Rev. Code 2929.06(B), which requires the trial court, when resentencing a capital offender whose death sentence has been set aside, to empanel a new jury and conduct a fresh penalty hearing, at which death may be a penalty to be considered by the jury. The trial court held it could not retroactively apply the statute in resentencing White, and therefore, White was ineligible for a death sentence. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution does not bar the statute's retroactive application in cases where the aggravated murder was committed before its enactment but the death sentence was set aside after its enactment; (2) the statute's application in this case does not violate the ex post facto clause; and (3) retroactive application of the statute does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Wayne Powell of the aggravated murder of four victims and of aggravated arson. The jury recommended the sentence of death for the aggravated murder of the victims. The trial court accepted those recommendations and sentenced Powell accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed Powell's convictions and sentences of death, finding no reversible error regarding (1) any pretrial and trial issues; (2) any penalty-phase issues; or (3) counsel's effectiveness during both phases of the trial. In addition, the court held that because Powell received a fair trial, the doctrine of cumulative error was not applicable to the present case, and Powell's death sentence was appropriate and proportionate. View "State v. Powell" on Justia Law

In this action the Cincinnati City School District Board of Education asked the Supreme Court to rule on the validity of a deed restriction it placed on school property that it offered for sale at a public auction. At issue was whether the deed restriction contravened public policy by preventing an unused school building from being used by a public charter school. The trial court concluded that the deed restriction was void as against public policy, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because this case involved a contract between a private party and a political subdivision, there was a compelling reason to apply the principle of the public policy exception to parties' rights to make contracts; and (2) therefore, the inclusion of a deed restriction preventing the use of property for school purposes in the contract for sale of an unused school building was unenforceable as against public policy. View "Cincinnati City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Conners" on Justia Law

Defendant Carl Morris was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape involving a minor. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of other acts to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith, in violation of Ohio R. Evid. 404(B). A divided appellate court vacated the conviction, concluding that the trial court improperly admitted other-acts testimony, that the court's error was not harmless, and that the error materially prejudiced Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an appellate court is to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review when considering an assignment of error that claims the trial court improperly admitted evidence of other acts to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith, in violation of Rule 404(B); and (2) the appellate court erred when it applied a de novo standard of review to this matter. Remanded. View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law

The Ohio Department of Health (ODH) issued several notices of violations of the Smoke Free Act to Appellants, a privately owned bar and its CEO. ODH subsequently filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief ordering Appellants to comply with the Smoke Free Act. Appellants filed a counterclaim for declaratory and injunctive relief against ODH and a cross-claim against the attorney general, alleging that the Smoke Free Act operated in violation of Appellants' constitutional rights, that the Act was invalid as applied to them, and that ODH engaged in rulemaking that exceeded its authority. The trial court held that ODH had exceeded its authority in implementing a policy of strict liability for violations of the Act by issuing fines regardless of whether Appellants were at fault and denied ODH's request for a permanent injunction. The court of appeals reversed and granted a permanent injunction to ODH. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and could not use declaratory judgment to vacate final orders, the previous violations of the Act were res judicata; and (2) the Act was a valid exercise of the state's police power and did not amount to a regulatory taking. View "Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc." on Justia Law