Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2011.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

Dec. 30,  2005

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- ID/PHOTOS – PROCEDURE/RULES – EVIDENCE - SENTENCING
- CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS – ATTORNEY FEES
- SEX OFFENSES - PROCEDURE/RULES - APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIM.
- CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS – ATTORNEY FEES
- CIVIL SERVICE – JURISDICTION / VENUE
- IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT - DEPORTATION
 

Ohio Supreme Court

No opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
State v. Harris (December 30, 2005)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040483.pdf
-  Harris was convicted of all nine counts and the accompanying gun specifications.  The trial court sentenced Harris to a total of 52 years in prison.  Harris now appeals his convictions and sentence, raising six assignments of error. In his first assignment of error, Harris contends that the trial court erred in failing to suppress identification evidence.  In his second assignment of error, Harris contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to server the aggravated-robbery and robbery counts for each of the four incidents.  In his third and fourth assignments of error, Harris contends that the trial court prejudiced his right to a fair trial when it permitted "other acts" testimony and hearsay testimony into evidence.  In his fifth assignment of error, Harris challenges his convictions on both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence.  In his sixth assignment of error, Harris argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law by improperly sentencing him.  Judgment AFFIRMED in part, sentence VACATED, and cause REMANDED.
 
Riley v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc. (December 30, 2005)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040668.pdf
-  The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant, a grocery store owner, on the plaintiff’s complaint for damages under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act for allegedly deceptive statements the store had made in a civil demand letter sent to the plaintiff after she had walked out of the store without paying for a can of cat treats:   A “consumer transaction” under the Act requires a “transfer of an item of goods,” and the plaintiff’s unilateral removal of the item from the store without paying for or providing any consideration for it and without the owner’s consent or participation in its removal did not constitute a “transfer” of the item.  Further, the Act specifically excludes an act or transaction permitted by another section of the Revised Code, and R.C. 2307.60 and 2307.61 specifically authorized the store’s demand letter and did not require the store owner to have undisputed proof of a theft before sending the letter. The appellee was entitled, under App.R. 23, to an award of reasonable attorney fees and expenses associated with an appeal deemed frivolous by the court of appeals upon its finding that the appellant’s counsel, in prosecuting the appeal, had ignored the clear language of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the civil collection statutes, and controlling case law.  [But, see, DISSENT:  If attorney fees are to be awarded at all, the majority’s “sanction” of $2500 is woefully inadequate, when actual fees were more than $31,000.] Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Haverland (December 30, 2005)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050119.pdf
-  In a case involving sexual abuse against a minor, the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion to obtain the victim’s juvenile-court records, where the court had already provided the defendant with the information necessary to present a fabrication defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a psychiatric examination of the victim, where the defendant did not demonstrate that the evidence would be used other than to impeach the victim’s credibility, and where the court had provided the defendant with the victim’s mental-health records.   The defendant waived his right to challenge the trial court’s decision not to suppress DNA evidence, where the defendant failed to take advantage of the trial court’s offer to rectify any constitutional infirmity resulting from the state’s failure to preserve electronic DNA data files. The defendant’s convictions on two counts of sexual battery and two counts of unlawful sexual contact with a minor on two separate dates were supported by sufficient, credible evidence:  (1) The victim testified that his step-uncle would engage in fellatio with him when he went to work with him on Saturday mornings; (2) the victim gave detailed testimony concerning the two locations of the crimes; (3) samples of defendant’s semen, found in both locations, corroborated this testimony; and (4) company sign-in sheets corroborated that the victim accompanied the defendant to work on the two dates. 
Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Riley v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc. (December 30, 2005)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050156.pdf
-  The trial court properly awarded the defendant, a grocery store owner, sanctions under Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51 against plaintiff’s counsel for counsel’s prosecution of a claim under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. Chapter 1345:  Plaintiff had taken a can of cat treats from the store without providing any consideration for, paying for, or securing the store owner’s consent or participation in the transfer; and existing Ohio law clearly provided that these circumstances did not give rise to a “consumer transaction” for purposes of the Act.  Further, the store owner’s written demand under R.C. 2307.61 for damages sustained as a consequence of plaintiff’s taking of the cat treats could not provide a basis for a claim under the Act, when another section of the Revised Code specifically authorized the demand. The appellee was entitled, under App.R. 23, to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses associated with an appeal deemed frivolous by the court of appeals upon its finding that the appellant’s counsel, in prosecuting the appeal, had ignored the clear language of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the civil collection statutes, and controlling case law.  [But, see, DISSENT:  If attorney fees are to be awarded at all, the majority’s “sanction” of $2500 is woefully inadequate, when actual fees were more than $ 23,000.] Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Baldwin v. City of Cincinnati, et al. (December 30, 2005)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050292.pdf
-  The common pleas court properly affirmed the civil service commission’s dismissal of Baldwin’s appeal from the termination of his employment upon his conviction of a felony, because the civil service commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

No opinions.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

Patel v. Gonzales (December 30, 2005) (Board of Immigration Appeals)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0489p-06.pdf
-  Petitioners, Jagubhai and Vanitaben Patel, appeal an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) entered on June 1, 2004 denying Petitioners’ request for: (1) a discretionary waiver of deportation pursuant to § 212(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i); (2) a discretionary waiver of deportation pursuant to § 237(a)(1)(H) of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H); and (3) a nunc pro tunc order legalizing Petitioners’ 1993 entry into the United States. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the petition for review.