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!

May 18, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Constitutional Law - Homicide ORC 2941.25 - Instructions
- Tort - fraudulently sold a trade name
- Relief from judgment motion
- Writ of habeas corpus
- Immigration - Petition for judicial review - application for asylum
- Evidence - Confrontation Clause rights
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Robinson (May 18, 2007) (2007-Ohio-2388)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2388.pdf
-  The admission into evidence of hearsay statements made by a four-year-old child to a police officer regarding the death of her baby sister violated the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against her under Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354; but the error was harmless because the hearsay statements were cumulative to the other evidence. The trial court properly instructed the jury on flight, even though the alleged flight could have been consistent with innocence:  The evidence showed that the defendant had left town when she knew that the police were investigating the death of a baby who had been entrusted to her care; that the defendant believed that a warrant for her arrest existed; and that the police had searched for her for several months and did not find her until they received an anonymous tip. The jury instructions on proximate cause relating to an involuntary-manslaughter charge did not prejudice the defendant even though they were somewhat confusing in places, because, when read as a whole, they adequately conveyed to the jury the law of proximate cause, including intervening cause. The evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant’s commission of child endangering was the proximate cause of a baby’s death, and therefore it was sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter:  Severe injury to the baby was within the scope of the risk created by the defendant when she repeatedly left the baby and other children without adult supervision, knowing that the baby’s four-year-old sister had previously picked her up and dropped her. The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for child endangering:  The state’s evidence showed that the defendant had violated a duty of care when she repeatedly left a baby and her four-year-old sister without adult supervision, even though older children were present, and when she knew that the four-year-old had previously picked up and dropped the baby. Involuntary manslaughter under R.C. 2903.04(A) and child endangering under R.C. 2919.22(A) are not allied offenses of similar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Maupin v. Griffin (May 18, 2007) (2007-Ohio-2389)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2389.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in entering judgment in favor of the sellers of a dry-cleaning business on the plaintiff’s fraud claim:  The plaintiff alleged that the Sellers had fraudulently sold her a trade name that they did not own; but the plaintiff failed to show that the sellers had made a knowing or reckless misrepresentation concerning whether they actually owned the name, and even if a misrepresentation could have been established, the plaintiff failed to show that she had suffered any damages. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Frazier v. Cincinnati School of Med. Massage (May 18, 2007) (2007-Ohio-2390)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2390.pdf
-  When the clerk never issued notice under Civ.R. 58(B) of the trial court’s entry of summary judgment against the plaintiff, the time to bring an appeal never began to run under App.R. 4(A); and instead of pursuing a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the judgment, which was a futile act and a waste of judicial resources, the plaintiff, upon learning of the entry of judgment, should have simply filed a notice of appeal and an affidavit explaining the delay caused by the lack of notice.  A Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment is otherwise appropriate when a party has never been notified of the commencement of litigation and only learns of a judgment after it has been entered, or when the clerk has issued notice of the judgment, but the movant claims that it was never received.  When the plaintiff eventually appealed from the entry of summary judgment after her motion from relief from that judgment had been denied, and the notice of appeal also specified that the plaintiff was challenging the denial of her Civ.R. 60(B) motion, the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in the record made the entry of summary judgment appropriate and also prevented a reversal of the court’s denial of relief from the judgment, because with the defendant entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it was clear that the plaintiff did not have a meritorious claim. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Bachman v. Bagley (May 18, 2007) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0182p-06.pdf
-  Ronald Dale Bachman appeals the district court’s decision that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely, arguing that his adjudication as a sexual predator under Ohio law effectively reopened the judgment against him and restarted the statute of limitations period. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
 
Durr v. Mitchell (May 18, 2007) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0183p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner-Appellant Darryl Durr, an Ohio death row inmate, appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On appeal, Durr challenges the district court’s: (1) procedural default rulings; (2) denial of his Sixth Amendment claim that the trial court failed to appoint an independent psychologist; (3) denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and (4) denial of the sufficiency of evidence claim. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the opinion of the district court denying Durr’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
 

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

 

Mapouya v. Gonzales (May 18, 2007) (Appeal from Board of Immigration Appeals )
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0180p-06.pdf
-  Blaise Mapouya petitions for judicial review of an order rendered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (“The Convention” or “Convention”). For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE and REMAND this case to the BIA for further proceedings.
 
USA v. Arnold (May 18, 2007) (Appeal from Board of W.D. Tenn)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0181p-06.pdf
-  Joseph Arnold challenges his felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm conviction, contending that the evidence does not support the verdict, that the district court violated his Confrontation Clause rights by admitting testimonial hearsay and that the district court made several erroneous evidentiary rulings during the course of the trial. We affirm.
 

Daily Case Updates