Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals determining that some evidence supported the determination of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation that Appellant, an underground cable installation provider, had misclassified its workers as independent contractors rather than as employees for workers' compensation purposes, holding that there was no error.The Bureau determined that cable installers who Appellant had characterized as independent contractors were Appellant's employees for purposes of Ohio's workers' compensation program. Appellant requested a writ of mandamus ordering vacated of the Bureau's decision. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that some evidence supported the Board's determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish its entitlement to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Ugicom Enterprises, Inc. v. Morrison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a reallocation of local-government funds regarding fines collected from the use of traffic cameras during the preceding fiscal year, called the "spending setoff," and the "deposit requirement" that municipalities file a civil action to enforce citations issued using traffic cameras to pay an advance deposit in the court are not unconstitutional.Appellees, municipalities that both operated programs to enforce their traffic laws with cameras, brought this action for a declaratory judgment and for injunction relief asserting that the "spending setoff" and the "deposit requirement" infringed on its municipal home rule powers, in violation of Ohio Const. art. XVIII, 3. Appellees requested a preliminary injunction, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the spending setoff and deposit requirement unconstitutionally penalize municipalities for exercising their home-rule authority to enforce their traffic laws with cameras. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the spending setoff nor the deposit requirement are unconstitutional. View "Village of Newburgh Heights v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals granting summary judgment against Appellant, an inmate seeking to compel the clerk of courts to produce certain records under the Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, holding that the court of appeals erred in rejecting Appellant's statutory-damages claim.Appellant filed a complaint for writ of mandamus alleging that he sent ten public-records requests to the clerk of court, who did not respond. The court of appeals concluded that Appellant was not entitled to relief in mandamus because the only requested record that was subject to the Public Records Act was not properly requested. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals erred in its rejection of Appellant's statutory-damages claims on the ground that the requested documents were governed by the Rules of Superintendence. View "State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for, among other crimes, two counts of aggravated murder with four death-penalty specifications attached to each count and Defendant's sentence of death, holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's argument that the Ohio Constitution limits the right to self-representation was not well taken; (2) Defendant failed to show plain error as to his argument that his standby counsel interfered with his trial preparation and strategy; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (4) there was no abuse of discretion in jury selection; (5) the court did not admit inadmissible victim-impact testimony from witnesses during the trial phase or commit other reversible evidentiary error; (6) there was no prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel; and (7) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were unavailing. View "State v. McAlpin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus, holding that Appellant did not show that the parole-revocation proceedings violated his constitutional right to due process.Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery and was later released on parole. Appellant was subsequently charged with violating the terms of his parole. After a revocation hearing, the parole board approved the hearing officer's recommendation that Appellant be ordered to serve an additional thirty-six months in prison before again becoming eligible for parole. The parole board approved the recommendation. Appellant filed an action for a writ of mandamus alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that reversible error occurred during the revocation hearing. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that the parole revocation proceedings violated his constitutional right to due process. View "State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions, holding that the judge's comments and questions to witnesses during Defendant's criminal trial did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial before an impartial judge.After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of felonious assault and associated firearm specifications and of having a weapon while under a disability. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that his due process right to a fair trial was violated because the trial court engaged in questioning that showed bias against him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not carry his burden of establishing a reasonable probability that but for the judge's actions he would not have been found guilty of the charged offenses. View "State v. West" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding Defendant's conviction of involuntary manslaughter, holding that Defendant's argument on appeal was without merit.Defendant committed a felony when he fired his gun at the scene of a fatal shooting because he was under disability as a result of a prior, unrelated drug offense that prohibited him from having or using a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argued that his prior drug offense that formed the basis for his firearms disability was unrelated to the victim's death, and therefore, his involuntary manslaughter conviction was improper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, by its plain terms, Ohio Rev. Code 2903.04(A) simply requires that a person cause the death of another "as a proximate result" of the commission of a felony. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions after finding that the state failed to prove venue, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Defendant was indicted in Erie County for retaliation, attempted aggravated murder, and conspiracy arising from conversations that he had with his cellmate while he was incarcerated in Marion County. Defendant objected to venue and requested that the proceedings be transferred to Marion County, but the motion was summarily denied. A jury then found Defendant guilty of all three charges. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that venue was improper in Erie County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State failed to prove that venue was proper in Erie County. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the general division of a common pleas court does not have jurisdiction over an offender who was arrested at the age of twenty for felonious acts he allegedly committed as a juvenile.Appellant was arrested at the age of twenty for acts he allegedly committed when he was seventeen years old, acts that would have been felonious had they been committed by an adult. Appellant was first indicted in the general division of the court of common pleas. The State recognized that the general division did not have jurisdiction over Appellant under Ohio Rev. Code 2152.02(C)(3) and 2151.23(I) and moved to dismiss the indictment. The indictment was dismissed, but because Appellant was twenty-two years old at that point, the State reindicted him in the general division the next day. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the jurisdiction of the general division of the court of common pleas is not invoked when a person is arrested at the age of twenty for felonious acts that he allegedly committed as a juvenile. View "State v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner, executor of the estate of Virginia Durkin, against Respondent, the judge presiding over the underlying action involving the Durkin estate, holding that Respondent was not entitled to the writ.Petitioner attempted to appeal a prior order appointing a special master commissioner, arguing that Respondent's appointment of the special master commissioner under Ohio Rev. Code 2101.06 disregarded the law of the case established in prior proceedings. After the court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order Petitioner brought the instant original action. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the appeal court's mandate was not violated in this case. View "Durkin v. Williams" on Justia Law