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 21 & 22, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Appellate Review / Automobile / Evidence
- Search and Seizure
- Disorderly Conduct / Jury Instructions
- Homicide / Jury Instructions
- Qualified immunity
- Ohio’s DNA Act
- Racial Composition of the Jury
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

***See Supreme court of Ohio website ***
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/NEWPDF/default.asp
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State of Ohio vs. Matthew Lee McDaniel (February 22, 2008)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-703.pdf
-  The appeal of a speeding conviction is not moot when the defendant has had statutorily mandated points added to his driving record.; The trial court did not err when it took judicial notice of the accuracy and reliability of a stationary radar device that had been used to measure the defendant’s speed:; the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized the reliability and accuracy of such devices.; The defendant’s conviction for speeding was not based on insufficient evidence:; The city was not required either to present evidence of the accuracy and reliability of tuning forks that had been used to calibrate the radar device or to prove that the citing officer had been certified to operate the device; and there was no need to have the device calibrated after the citation had been issued.
 
State of Ohio vs. Demetrius Davis (February 22, 2008)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-704.pdf
-  The trial court erred by granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his apartment during the execution of a search warrant: The affidavit used to obtain the warrant was not defective due to the absence of a specific temporal reference, when there was enough information to allow the issuing magistrate to infer that the police had sought the warrant immediately after they had secured the place to be searched.
 
State of Ohio vs. Fran Johnson (February 22, 2008)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-705.pdf
-  The trial court erred in rejecting the defendant’s request for a jury instruction defining the term “turbulent behavior” as used in the disorderly-conduct statute, R.C. 2917.11: The term was not in common usage, and the defendant was entitled to have the jury accurately apply the words used in the statute. The defendant’s conviction for disorderly conduct was based on sufficient evidence: Following an automobile accident, the defendant had repeatedly struggled with a police officer after being told to desist, causing herself and the officer to come dangerously close to the flow of traffic, and causing delay in clearing the accident from the roadway.
 
State of Ohio vs. David K. Griffin (February 22, 2008)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-724.pdf
-  The trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could find the defendant guilty of both felony murder and voluntary manslaughter: If the jury found that the defendant had committed felony murder, but also found the presence of one of the mitigating circumstances associated with voluntary manslaughter, the jury had to find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than felony murder. When charges of both felony murder and voluntary manslaughter are submitted to a jury, the trial court must instruct the jury on the mitigating circumstances associated with voluntary manslaughter.
 

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

 

Dorsey v. Barber (February 21, 2008) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0086p-06.pdf
-  This case presents civil rights claims against various law enforcement officers for unlawful arrest and use of excessive force. Now before the court is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the district court denying two defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In particular, the district court held that, due to outstanding questions of fact, defendants Portage County Sheriff’s Deputy Duane M. Dawson and Village of Brady Lake Police Officer Allen C. Begin were not entitled to qualified immunity. Both defendants appealed this ruling. Dawson’s appeal (No. 05-4234) was dismissed on joint motion of the parties on March 2, 2007. Now, for the reasons that follow, we hold that the district court erred in ruling that Officer Begin is not entitled to qualified immunity.
 
Wilson v. Collins  (February 22, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0088p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-appellant, a prisoner in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, challenges the constitutionality of Ohio’s DNA Act, which requires the collection of DNA specimens from convicted felons. Below, plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the Act is violative of his Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, due process and equal protection rights. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. Finding the district court’s opinion to be well-reasoned and consistent with the growing body of case law on such challenges to DNA statutes, we affirm.
 

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

 

USA v. Odeneal AND USA v. Andres (February 22, 2008) (Appeal from W.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0087p-06.pdf
-  Defendants Deshaun Odeneal and Shane Andres appeal from their convictions and sentences for participating in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana, heroin, and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and for possessing firearms in furtherance of their drug trafficking crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Defendants raised a number of claims on appeal, some of which need not be decided given the determination by Judge Clay, joined by Judge Martin, that the defendants established a Batson violation. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1976). Accordingly, this lead opinion represents the decision of the court with respect to Sections II.A.1., II.B.1. and II.B.2., and, for the reasons stated in the separate opinion by Judge Clay, the defendants’ convictions are reversed and the cases are remanded for new trial. The court rejects defendants’ claims concerning the racial composition of the venire (II.A.1.), the constitutionality of a statutory life sentence (II.B.1.), and the validity of the prior-conviction enhancement noticed under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (II.B.2.). However, for the reasons set forth in the separate opinion by Judge Clay, the defendants’ convictions are REVERSED, their sentences are VACATED, and their cases are REMANDED for new trial.
 

Daily Case Updates