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!

April 7, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Drugs
- Counsel
- Indictment - Complaint - Disorderly Conduct
- Miranda
- Sex Offenses
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Sneed (April 7, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1749)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1749.pdf
-  Where police officers investigating a nighttime automobile accident
learned that a passenger had just run from the  wrecked automobile,
thrown an object into bushes 100 yards away, and run back to the
automobile before police arrived,  the officers were entitled to ask the
passenger, after arresting him on outstanding warrants, what the object
was without  informing him of his Miranda rights:  The question fell
within the public-safety exception to the requirement that  Miranda
warnings be given before an in-custody suspect's answers become
admissible into evidence. Where a police  officer's questions fell
within the public-safety exception to the requirement that Miranda
warnings be given, the trial  court erred by suppressing a defendant's
post-warning statements as the "illegal fruit" of a Miranda
violation. Where a  suspect has responded to unwarned yet uncoerced
custodial interrogation, the admissibility of the suspect's
post-warning  statements turns on whether the statements were knowingly
and voluntarily made.  Where a defendant's unwarned statements  were
uncoerced, and the defendant's subsequent warned statements were
voluntarily made pursuant to a valid Miranda  waiver, the trial court
erred by suppressing the defendant's warned statements. Judgment
REVERSED and cause REMANDED. 

State v. Barnes (April 7, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1748)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1748.pdf
-  A criminal conviction will not be reversed based upon a variance
between the facts alleged in a criminal complaint and  the evidence
offered at trial unless the defendant can demonstrate prejudice. There
was insufficient evidence to support  a conviction for disorderly
conduct while intoxicated under O.R.C. 2917.11(B)(1), where police had
to awaken the  defendant from an apparent drunken stupor in an apartment
where the defendant had a right to be, where the defendant was
immediately placed in custody and handcuffed, and his "yelling and
screaming" did not involve fighting words. Judgment  REVERsed and
Appellant discharged.

State v. Brotherton (April 7, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1747)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1747.pdf
-  Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress
eyewitness identifications made from a photo array:   The pretrial
identification procedures were reliable-each victim had time to analyze
features of the defendant, their  descriptions matched the defendant's
physical appearance, and the photo arrays were not unduly suggestive.
Trial counsel  was under no duty to call a fourth alibi witness:  The
trial court merely found the victims' testimony to be more  credible,
and the fourth witness would have simply provided duplicative testimony.
Trial counsel was not ineffective for  failing to oppose joinder of the
charges:  The two crimes were related by time, day, location, and common
scheme, and  even if the charges had been separated, evidence of one
offense would still have been admissible in the trial of the  other.
Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. Beamon (April 7, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1746)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1746.pdf
-  The defendant's conviction for trafficking in cocaine was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence:  A police  officer
testified that the defendant had sold her crack cocaine, and another
police officer's eyewitness testimony  corroborated the specifics of
the drug transaction. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. Fahey (April 7, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1745)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1745.pdf
-  The defendant's classification as a sexual predator did not
violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States  Constitution or
the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution.  The trial court had
sufficient evidence to adjudicate  the defendant a sexual predator:  The
defendant raped a fourteen-year-old girl and left her for dead in the
woods, had an  extensive juvenile record before committing the rape, and
had a moderate to high score on a test that provided some  measure of
his likelihood to re-offend.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

No Opinions.

Daily Case Updates