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!

February 23, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Procedure / Rules - Counsel
- Debtor / Creditor - Procedure / Rules
- Search & Seizure - Autos / Criminal
- Assault - Sentencing
- Sex Offenses - Evidence
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Sok (Dec. 23, 2006) (2007-ohio-729)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-729.pdf
-  The trial court correctly denied a nonresident defendant's post-
sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, where the record
affirmatively showed that the nonresident defendant had been informed by
the court of the possibility of deportation prior to entering his guilty
plea. Defense counsel's statements to a nonresident defendant that his
guilty plea would not likely result in deportation did not constitute
ineffective assistance of counsel, where the duty to give such warnings
belonged to the trial court, not to defense counsel, where the trial
court informed the defendant of the possibility of deportation after his
counsel's remarks, and where the defendant failed to demonstrate any
prejudice as a result of the plea.  [But, see, DISSENT:  Regardless of
whether a lawyer is required to inform a defendant of the possible
deportation consequences of a guilty plea, when counsel actively
misinformed the defendant, in conflict with an unambiguous law, that he
would not face deportation, a manifest injustice occurred that made it
impossible for the defendant to enter a voluntary and intelligent plea;
the trial should, therefore, have granted the defendant's Crim.R. 32.1
motion to withdraw his guilty plea, thereby saving the defendant from
the terrible and unjust fate of being ousted from the country that has
been his home since age ten.] Judgment AFFIRMED.

Wooding v. Cinfed Emps. Fed. Credit Union (Dec. 23, 2006) (2007-ohio-728)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-728.pdf
-  The trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of a lender in a
suit brought by a debtor who claimed that the lender had wrongfully
retained title to her car as collateral for a credit-card debt:  Though
the debtor had pledged the car as collateral for an automobile loan, an
executed credit-card agreement was not in the record, and the record
therefore failed to demonstrate that the credit-card agreement had
permitted the cross-collateralization of the automobile. The trial court
did not err in entertaining the lender's counterclaim for the unpaid
credit-card debt in response to the debtor's suit claiming that the
lender had wrongfully retained title to her car as collateral for the
credit-card debt:  Under Civ.R. 13(A), the counterclaim arose from the
same transaction or occurrence underlying the debtor's claim, and it was
accordingly a compulsory counterclaim. Judgment AFFIRMED in Part,
REVERSED in Part, and final Judgment entered.

State v. Bacher (Dec. 23, 2006) (2007-ohio-727)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-727.pdf
-  A driver's slow speed, standing alone, does not create the required
reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. Judgment REVERSED
and Cause REMANDED.

State v. French (Dec. 23, 2006) (2007-ohio-726)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-726.pdf
-  The defendant's convictions for felonious assault were not against
the manifest weight of the evidence:  An eyewitness testified that the
defendant had shot into an after-hours club from the front yard, and her
testimony was corroborated by testimony from other witnesses, including
an investigating officer who had found spent bullet casings in a
location consistent with her testimony but inconsistent with the
testimony of defense witnesses. The trial court erred in sentencing the
defendant on each of four firearm specifications, where the underlying
felonious assaults had been committed as part of the same act or
transaction.  Judgment AFFIRMED in Part, Sentence VACATED in Part, and
Cause REMANDED.

State v. Henson (Dec. 23, 2006) (2007-ohio-725)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-725.pdf
-  The defendant's conviction for attempted gross sexual imposition was
based on sufficient evidence, where the state demonstrated that he had
touched his 15-year-old daughter's breasts and had attempted to put his
hand down her pants; and the element of force was proved through the
defendant's relationship with the victim and through the victim's
testimony that she had to struggle with the defendant to prevent further
sexual contact. The trial court did not err in permitting the victim to
read her prior written statement to the jury:  The statement was
admissible as a recorded recollection under Evid.R. 803(5) because the
statement had been made to the police shortly after the offense, and
because it accurately reflected the victim's knowledge of the events.
The trial court erred in providing the witness's prior written statement
to the jury:  Under Evid.R. 803(5), a witness may read a prior written
statement on the record, but the written statement itself may not be
received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party. The trial
court erred in admitting the witness's prior written statement in
response to the jury's request, when the court marked the statement as
its own exhibit and provided it to the jury outside the presence of the
defendant:  The court's action was an impermissible ex parte
communication with the jury, and prejudice was demonstrated by the fact
that the jury had specifically requested the statement and intended to
use it in its deliberations. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 

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