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.

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!

May 22nd & 23rd, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Negligence
- Appellate Review / Criminal / ORC 2941.25
- Evidence / Procedure - Rules / ORC 2941.25
- Habeas corpus / Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
- Search and Seizure / Warrant and probable cause
- United States Sentencing Guidelines
- Prosecutorial misconduct
- Employment Law / ADA / FMLA / Retaliatory Discharge / Whistleblower / Fair Dealing
- §1983 complaint / Race-discrimination
- Sentencing / Armed Career Criminal Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Sherril Bruckner, et al. vs. Proscan Imaging, LLC (May 23, 2008)(2008-ohio-2468)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2468.pdf
-  The trial court erred in entering summary judgment for the defendant on a negligence claim, where the plaintiffs produced evidence that an allegedly faulty bench had been constructed by the defendant or its agent; the issue whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of this allegedly hazardous condition was irrelevant, as notice should have been presumed as a matter of law.
 
State of Ohio vs. Rodriquez Madaris (May 23, 2008)(2008-ohio-2470)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2470.pdf
-  Police officers were entitled to give their opinions about the demeanor of the defendant and another individual while they were being questioned about a robbery, when the opinions were based on firsthand knowledge and the perceptions of the witnesses, and when they were useful to the jury in determining whether to believe the defendant’s assertion that the robbery was a staged offense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in providing a magnifying glass so that the jury could examine a photograph during its deliberations: The use of the magnifying glass simply aided the jurors’ natural sight and did not create additional evidence; and there was no need to notify the parties about what the court had done. The trial court erred when it imposed separate sentences for aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and for robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2): under the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Cabrales, 2008-Ohio-1625, which has rejected an allied-offense analysis based on strict textual comparison and exact alignment of elements, the two offenses were allied offenses of similar import for which only one sentence could have been imposed.
 
State of Ohio vs. Garey Smith (May 23, 2008)(2008-ohio-2469)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2469.pdf
-  The trial court did not err by retrying the defendant on counts that had been merged in an earlier trial: after the case had been remanded on the ground that the defendant had been denied his right of self-representation in the earlier trial, the convictions resulting from that trial ceased to exist, and thus the mergers no longer had any legal significance. Felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) are allied offenses of similar import; thus, when the defendant was charged with both offenses for each of the two victims he had assaulted, the trial court erred; it should have only sentenced the defendant for one offense for each victim.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Harris v. Haeberlin  (May 22, 2008)(Appeal from W.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0191p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner-Appellant Frederick Harris, a Kentucky state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Harris invokes the case of Batson v. Kentucky to challenge the prosecution’s exercise of its peremptory strikes as race-based and therefore violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Upon conducting the requisite Batson analysis, the state trial court rejected Harris’s claims. After Harris’s conviction but prior to his appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, the defense team discovered that the courtroom cameras had turned on and captured a private conversation among the prosecutorial team as it was discussing the exercise of its peremptory challenges. Notwithstanding this newly acquired evidence, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Harris’s conviction. Harris v. Kentucky, No. 1998-SC-0414-MR (Ky. Feb. 24, 2000) (unpublished). In his petition for federal habeas corpus relief, the district court also found no violation of Batson. On appeal, Harris now argues that the district court erred in its application of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) when it denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, Harris asserts that, in upholding the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s denial of his Batson challenges, the district court engaged in an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the newly discovered videotape evidence. For the following reasons, we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of Harris’s Batson claim and REMAND to the district court for a renewed Batson hearing in light of the after-acquired videotape evidence.
 
USA v. Smith (May 22, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0192p-06.pdf
-  Rickey Smith contends that the district court should have suppressed evidence that officers discovered in his residence while he was serving the last years of a 15-to-30-year sentence as a prisoner in a community residential home, which is to say he was living in a private home while connected to an electronic-monitoring device that ensured he never left the walls of the home without permission. Because the search was reasonable in view of Smith’s continuing prisoner status and in view of his knowledge that officers could search his living quarters as freely as they could search his prison cell and because the exclusionary rule does not apply to knock-and-announce violations, we affirm.
 
USA v. Bullock (May 22, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0193p-06.pdf
-  Defendant William Michael Bullock (“Bullock”) appeals the 18 month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic violence order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (2000), on the basis of the district court’s alleged miscalculation of the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) range. In particular, Bullock challenges the district court’s application of a fourpoint offense level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6) of the Guidelines. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.
 
Cristini v. McKee (May 22, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0194p-06.pdf
-  Respondent-Appellant Ken McKee, warden for Petitioner-Appellee James Craig Cristini, appeals an order from the district court conditionally granting Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus after finding prosecutorial misconduct. In this habeas action originally filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, Petitioner Cristini argued inter alia that the Michigan prosecutor improperly offered and argued other-acts evidence and that the prosecutor improperly commented on the credibility of defense witnesses. The district court agreed. On appeal, Warden McKee maintains that the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct and that, even if he did, the misconduct did not result in such prejudice as to warrant habeas relief. For the reasons stated below, we REVERSE the district court.
 
Nance v. Goodyear Tire Co (May 23, 2008)(Appeal from W.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0195p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Marcia B. Nance appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (“Goodyear”) on her claims alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Tennessee Handicap Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act; retaliatory discharge, including violations of the Tennessee “whistleblower” law; wrongful and constructive discharge through alleged retaliatory conduct; outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of Tennessee common law; and breach of a common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
Brand v. Motley  (May 23, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0196p-06.pdf
-  Dewayne Brand, a black inmate, filed a § 1983 complaint after prison officials denied his request to share a cell with a white inmate in part because a “Black/White move . . . is more difficult to do than a same race move.” The district court dismissed his claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), reasoning that Brand could not complain about why the officials turned him down given that, as an inmate, he lacks a right to be placed in the cell of his choice. Because Brand’s claim sets out an arguable question of law, supported by arguable facts, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
 
USA v. Martin  (May 23, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0197p-06.pdf
-  Defendant-Appellant Kenneth Martin conditionally pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to charges of being a felon-in-possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced with an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act to a term of imprisonment of 180 months. Martin now appeals his conviction and sentence arguing that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence and to disclose the identity of the confidential informant whose information led to the search of his residence and the ultimate discovery of the gun upon which the charges against him were predicated. Martin also argues that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the Walther .380 caliber semiautomatic pistol found by the agents during the execution of the search warrant had traveled in, or affected, interstate commerce. He further argues that his prior criminal convictions did not constitute sufficient predicate offenses for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act and that the district court’s use of his prior convictions in fashioning his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
  

Daily Case Updates