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 or 2006.

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

March 10, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Constitutionality - election
- Sex offenses - Constitutional law - Criminal law
- Drugs - Search and Seizure - Sentencing
- Sex Offenses
- Sentencing
- civil rights - discrimination
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State ex rel. Kuhar v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections (March 10, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1079)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1079.pdf
-  Mandamus * Elections * Constitutionality of R.C. 1901.31 * Challenging constitutionality of legislation through mandamus is generally prohibited * Mandamus claim is manifestly a claim for prohibitory injunction and declaratory judgment * Court lacks jurisdiction * Cause dismissed.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Huffman (March 10, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1106.pdf
-  Huffman appeals his convictions for illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, voyeurism, and pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor.  Huffman filed a motion to dismiss the pandering counts, arguing that the pandering statute, O.R.C. 2907.322(A)(1), was unconstitutional. Judgment AFFIRMED with the exception of the felony sentences, which are VACTATED.
 
State v. Upton (March 10, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1107.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a residence in a warrantless entry:  the court correctly held that the entry was justified by exigent circumstances, because when the officers arrived at the defendant's residence after a report of shots fired, the defendant was in the front yard bleeding profusely and another man was coming out of the residence with a gunshot wound to the leg, so the officers were accordingly justified in entering the house to ensure that there were no suspects or other victims inside. The defendant's convictions for drug trafficking and drug possession were based upon sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence:  the defendant's admission that he was the only permanent residence of the house, coupled with the presence of his personal effects in the house, was sufficient to establish that he was in constructive possession of the contraband found there. The trial court did not err in imposing prison terms instead of a term of community control:  the defendant's second-degree-felony convictions for drug trafficking and drug possession required the court to impose prison terms under R.C. 2925.03(C)(1). Because R.C. 2929.14(B) was declared unconstitutional in State v. Foster, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2006-Ohio-856, __ N.E.2d __, the imposition of more than the minimum sentences was invalid, and the case must be remanded for resentencing within the statutory ranges.  Judgment AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and Cause REMANDED.
 
State v. Cockshutt (March 10, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1108.pdf
-  The trial court had sufficient evidence to adjudicate the defendant a sexual predator after he was convicted of two counts of raping his eight-year-old niece:  The defendant had a lengthy criminal record that included a conviction for solicitation and numerous incidents of misconduct while he was in prison, and he had failed to complete any sex-offender treatment program; and although he had a low score on a test that provided some measure of his likelihood to re-offend, the court clinic report detailed his various emotional problems and a troubled family background that involved his own abuse as a child. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Stafford (March 10, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1105.pdf
-  The trial court erroneously raised the defendant's sentence above the statutory minimum and erroneously imposed consecutive sentences based on statutory findings that were held unconstitutional in Blakely v. Washington. In light of the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Foster, the improper sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing; trial courts now have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing consecutive or more than minimum sentences. Sentence VACATED and Cause REMANDED for Resentencing.
 

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

 

Amini v. Oberlin College (March 10, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0089p-06.pdf
-  For the second time, plaintiff Saeid B. Amini appeals the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit. Amini applied for a job as an assistant professor of mathematics at defendant Oberlin College in 1998. He was not hired; in fact, he was not even interviewed for the position. He responded to the rejection by filing a lawsuit in the district court alleging discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religious affiliation, and age under a variety of federal statutes. The district court dismissed the complaint, and this court reversed in part, remanding the racial discrimination count based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for further consideration. Thereafter, the district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on that remaining count, which is the subject of the present appeal. We affirm. 
 

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

 

No Opinion.
 

Daily Case Updates