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!

December 1st and 4th, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Insanity - Counsel
- Criminal Miscellaneous - Counsel - Sentencing
- Appellate Review/Crim. - Crim. Miscellaneous
- Sex offenses
- Constitutional Law/Crim. - Death Penalty
- Criminal Miscellaneous - Counsel
- Evidence - Jury Instuctions - Sentencing
- Writ of habeas corpus
- Immigration - asylum and voluntary departure
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Ushry (Dec. 1, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-6287.pdf
-  The trial court's rejection of the defendant's insanity defense was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where both the defense and the prosecution presented expert testimony regarding the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offenses, and where the trial court's conclusion that the defendant was sane resulted from its decision to accord more weight to the prosecution's expert witnesses. Defense counsel was not ineffective when, as a matter of trial strategy, he did not file a motion to suppress the defendant's statements to the police, but instead sought to rely on those statements to support an insanity defense.

State v. Menser (Dec. 1, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-6286.pdf
-  A conviction is not reversible because a defendant has stood trial in jail clothing unless the defendant was compelled to wear such attire; the failure to object to standing trial in jail clothing can negate the required presence of compulsion. Whether counsel requests a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is ordinarily a matter of trial strategy that does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel: Counsel was not ineffective for failing to request an instruction on the lesser-included offense of trespass, when the evidence presented at trial would not have supported an acquittal on the charged offense of attempted burglary. Because the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that R.C. 2929.14(C) is unconstitutional, a maximum sentence imposed under this statute must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing in accordance with law.

State v. Sims (Dec. 1, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-6285.pdf
-   Evidence showing that the defendant grabbed the mother of his child from behind and choked her was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A). The evidence was not sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for domestic violence against his daughter, because the state failed to prove that she had ever resided with the defendant, and, therefore, it failed to prove that she was a family or household member as defined in R.C. 2919.25(F)(1)(a)(ii). The failure to make a Crim.R. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal at trial does not waive a claim on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, because the defendant's "not guilty" plea preserves the right to object to the sufficiency of the evidence.

State v. Mack (Dec. 1, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-6284.pdf
-  Evidence that the defendant patted an 11-year-old girl on the buttocks and said, "Come on girls," as she and her friend crossed the street, and that he later sat next to the girls outside a convenience store and talked about how babies were made supported the inference that the touching was for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification; therefore the evidence was sufficient to show sexual contact under R.C. 2907.01(B) and to support a conviction for sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.06(A)(1). Because the defendant was over 18 years old and the victim was under 18 years old, the defendant's conviction for sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.06 involved a sexually oriented offense, and the trial court committed plain error in violation of the mandatory provisions of R.C. Chapter 2950 by failing to hold a hearing and to determine whether the defendant was a sexual predator or a habitual sex offender.

State v. O'Neal (Dec. 1, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-6283.pdf
-  The common pleas court properly denied a postconviction claim that because the petitioner was mentally retarded, his execution would violate the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The petitioner's IQ scores over 70 gave rise to a presumption that he was not mentally retarded; and the record provided reliable, credible evidence to support the court's conclusion that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption with proof by a preponderance of the evidence that, before the age of 18, he had manifested significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and significant limitations in his adaptive skills.

State v. Gandy (Dec. 1, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-6282.pdf
-  To establish whether a defendant was prejudiced by standing trial in jail clothing, the issue is whether the defendant was compelled to wear such attire; the failure to raise an objection to being tried in jail clothing negates the requisite compulsion necessary to establish prejudice. When ample evidence of guilt was presented at trial, and the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury, the defendant was not prejudiced by standing trial in jail clothing, and counsel was not ineffective for allowing the defendant to wear such clothing.
 

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

 

USA v. Caver (Dec. 4, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0452p-06.pdf
-  "Operation Snow Removal," an investigation into drug crimes in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, led to the indictment of 15 alleged conspirators on December 17, 2003. Many of the alleged conspirators pleaded guilty; Defendants Caver, Abdullah, and Cloud (collectively "Defendants") did not. They proceeded to trial, and were found guilty of conspiracy to possess crack cocaine and possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. On September 27, 2004, Defendants Caver and Abdullah were sentenced to life without release; Defendant Cloud was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, Defendants, either collectively or individually, argue that their convictions should be overturned because (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy; (2) there was a prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof at trial; (3) the district court improperly denied Defendant Caver's motion for a severance; (4) the district court made erroneous evidentiary rulings; (5) the district court improperly refused to grant a mistrial in response to improper outbursts by government witnesses; (6) the district court gave erroneous jury instructions; (7) Defendants' sentences are unconstitutional or unreasonable under Booker;2 and (8) Defendant Cloud was denied effective assistance of counsel. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM Defendants' convictions and sentences.
 

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

 

Lyell v. Renico (Dec. 1, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0450p-06.pdf
-  A jury convicted Earl Ray Lyell of assault with intent to commit murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.83, and a judge sentenced him to thirty to sixty years in prison as an habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.1083. He now petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the trial court (1) coerced the jury into reaching a guilty verdict by improperly polling the jury and (2) exhibited bias and partiality that denied him a fair trial. Although we reject Lyell's claim that the jury polling violated his constitutional rights, we agree that the trial judge's conduct violated his due-process right to a fair trial. We reverse and conditionally grant the writ.

Patel v. Gonzales (Dec. 4, 2006) (State of Tennessee Agency )
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0451p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner Arvindbhai Hargovandas Patel ("Patel") seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal's ("BIA") decision denying Patel asylum and voluntary departure under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). For the following reasons, we DENY Patel's petition with respect to his asylum claim, and REMAND his voluntary departure claim for a ruling by the BIA on whether Patel is entitled to voluntary departure.