Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The probate court appointed a guardian for Appellant, who was found to be indigent, and placed him in a secured nursing facility. After 120 days had elapsed since the appointment of the guardian for Appellant, Appellant requested a review of the guardianship to review the continued necessity of the guardianship. A guardianship-review hearing was scheduled, but the court did not appoint counsel to represent Appellant for the hearing. Appellant filed a motion for the appointment of counsel at court expense. The probate court stated that that the request to appoint counsel would be considered at the review hearing. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the probate court to appoint counsel for him for the review hearing, and the court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ of mandamus to compel the probate court to appoint counsel to represent him in the guardianship-review proceeding, holding that Appellant established his entitlement to the requested relief. View "State ex rel. McQueen v. Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

Relator made numerous public-records requests, which apparently stemmed from his unsuccessful application for zoning variances and his complaint to the township concerning a township trustee's use of his property, which was near Relator's property, for shooting firearms. The Supreme Court considered Relator's claim in the limited context of two requests. Relator filed his first mandamus action for a writ to compel township officials to provide him with copies of records requested by him. The court of appeals denied the writ based on its holding that the officials had provided Relator with the requested records. Relator then filed a second mandamus action naming several other township officials as respondents. Relator's second mandamus case remained pending. Relator then filed an original action in the Supreme Court requesting a writ of mandamus essentially against the same parties to make his requested records available. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that based on the jurisdictional-priority rule, Relator's previously filed court of appeals mandamus cases prevented the Court from exercising original jurisdiction in mandamus over Relator's claims here. View "State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko" on Justia Law

Appellant filed writs of prohibition and mandamus to prevent Appellee, a county court of common pleas judge, from proceeding in an adoption case. In the alternative, Appellant sought the writs to require the judge to permit Appellant to appear as a party in the case. The court of appeals denied the requested relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly denied the request for extraordinary relief in prohibition and mandamus, holding (1) the judge did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the underlying adoption case; (2) Appellant's claims were not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ case; and (3) the fact that Appellant's attempts thus far to raise these issues on appeal had been unsuccessful did not entitle her to the requested extraordinary relief. View "State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano" on Justia Law

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Brunswick City Council removed Appellant, a city council member, from office for violating section 3.05(b) of the Brunswick Charter. Afterwards, Appellee was appointed to fill the vacancy created by Appellant's removal. Appellant filed an administrative appeal from the city council's decision, and the court of common pleas affirmed. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal based on mootness. Before the common pleas court decided his administrative appeal, Appellant filed a writ of quo warranto requesting that Appellee be ousted and that he be restored to the office of council member. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that the court of appeals erred in denying the requested extraordinary relief in quo warranto. View "State ex rel. Capretta v. Zamiska" on Justia Law

This was an election contest regarding the office of state representative. Joshua O'Farrell and Al Landis were the candidates. After the general election, the county board of elections declared that Landis had defeated O'Farrell by fourteen votes. After an automatic recount was conducted, the county board of elections declared that Landis had defeated O'Farrell by eight votes. O'Farrell subsequently filed this case contesting the election. O'Farrell moved for an order to hand-count or permit inspection of thirteen ballots, which the chief justice denied. O'Farrell then moved the Supreme Court for an order compelling production of the ballots, to extend the deadline by which to submit evidence, and for leave to file a motion to supplement the motion to compel. The Court denied the motions after noting that O'Farrell would have the opportunity to present his arguments for a recount or visual inspection to the House of Representatives when the election petition was before that body, holding that because O'Farrell had not identified a genuine election irregularity in his petition, a visual inspection or production of the ballots to support that count was not justified at this time. View "O'Farrell v. Landis" on Justia Law

Township, located in County, decided to place a tax levy for fire protection and emergency medical services in excess of the ten-mill limitation on the February 5, 2013 special-election ballot. The board of Township trustees adopted a resolution declaring it necessary to levy the additional levy and determined to proceed to have the tax question submitted to Township electors. The County board of elections voted unanimously to deny certification of the levy on the February 5, 2013 special-election ballot, determining that Township failed to submit the documents for the levy by the 4:00 p.m. deadline on November 7, 2012. On December 12, 2012, the Township board of trustees filed this expedited election action for writ of mandamus to compel the County board of elections to place the levy on the special-election ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the board of elections abused its discretion by refusing to place the levy on the ballot, where the fact that the resolution was time-stamped two minutes late harmed no one's rights, and that the people of Township should have the opportunity to determine whether the cuts to safety services that would occur without a levy are acceptable. View "State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Del. County Bd. of Elections" 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

Appellants, contractors and engineers, filed a declaratory judgment action against Appellee, the tax commissioner of Ohio, seeking a judgment declaring that the Ohio commercial activity tax (CAT), as it related to motor-vehicle-fuel sales, violated Ohio Const. art. XII, 5a. The trial court granted summary judgment for the tax commissioner. The appellate court affirmed, applying the rationale of Ohio Grocers Ass'n v. Levin, concluding that the background and history of Section 5a did not support the contention that the CAT was a tax "relating to" motor vehicle fuel sales. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the expenditure of the CAT revenue that was derived from motor-vehicle-fuel sales were "related to" fuels used for propelling motor vehicles on a highway, within the meaning of Section 5a, and consequently, the excise tax violated the Ohio Constitution to the extent that the revenue raised was used for purposes other than those specified in Section 5a. View "Beaver Excavating Co. v. Testa" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of rape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping, and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) pursuant to State v. Curry, other acts evidence offered to show a scheme, plan, or system is inadmissible unless it shows the background of the alleged crime or proves the identity of the accused; and (2) under Curry, the admission of evidence of a prior sexual relationship Defendant had with a different minor was precluded because the sexual acts of that relationship had been "chronologically and factually separate occurrences" and the identity of the accused was not an issue at trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) pursuant to Ohio R. Evid. 404(B), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of an accused may be admissible to prove intent or plan, even if the identity of an accused or the immediate background of a crime is not at issue; and (2) consequently, evidence that Defendant had engaged in sexual relations with a teenage boy could be admissible to prove Defendant had a plan to groom boys for sexual activity with the intent of sexual gratification. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of forcible rape of a child, gross sexual imposition, and kidnapping. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years to life in prison. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions but reversed the trial court's judgment not to merge the kidnapping and rape offenses, holding that the convictions for rape and kidnapping were allied offenses of similar import that should have merged at sentencing. At issue on appeal was whether the appellate court erred in applying a de novo review of the trial court's determination that Defendant's offense should merge, or whether the court should have applied an abuse-of-discretion standard. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an appellate court should apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court's Ohio Rev. Code 2941.25 merger determination. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law