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!

June 19th & 20th, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Delinquency / Competent to stand trial
- Sex offenses
- Due Process / Race Discrimination / Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
- Federal Aviation Regulations - safety-sensitive function
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

 
No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

In Re: Robert William Braden (June 20, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2981)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2981.pdf
-  The right not be tried or convicted while incompetent is as fundamental in juvenile proceedings as it is in criminal trials of adults. R.C. 2945.37(G) provides that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial if, after a hearing, the trial court finds that he is incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against him or of assisting in his own defense; this standard also governs the competency evaluations of juveniles, so long as it is applied in light of juvenile rather than adult norms. Once the juvenile court has determined that an offender is not competent to stand trial, a presumption of incompetence arises, which the state must rebut by coming forward with evidence of competency.  Juv.R. 32(A) provides that the juvenile court may order a mental examination where the issue of competency has been raised; the court must hold a hearing on whether the juvenile is competent and, after considering the evidence presented by the parties at that hearing, make a finding as to the juvenile’s competency. In a delinquency proceeding, after the juvenile court had found a child incompetent to stand trial, the court erred by revisiting the issue and making a finding of competency based upon a psychologist’s report that was never made part of the trial record. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Alfred Clay (June 20, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2980)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2980.pdf
-  Defendant’s challenge on appeal to his classification under former R.C. Chapter 2950 as a sexual predator was not rendered moot by the law’s amendment: defendant insisted on appeal that he should have been classified under former R.C. Chapter 2950 not as a sexual predator, but as a sexually oriented offender; and while his classification under the former law as a sexual predator effectively subjected him to the amended law’s community*notification provisions, his classification under the former law as a sexually oriented offender would have exempted him from the amended law’s community-notification provisions. The trial court erred in classifying defendant as a “sexual predator” in October 2007 based upon Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10’s amendments to R.C. 2950.09, when the amendments were not effective until January 1, 2008. The trial court’s classification of defendant as a sexual predator was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, when defendant’s offense was his first sexually oriented offense, and the trial court did not articulate sufficient findings on the record to demonstrate defendant’s likelihood of recidivism. 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

 

Grinter v. Knight (June 19, 2008)(Appeal from W.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0213p-06.pdf
-  A Kentucky prisoner proceeding pro se appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for violations of due process, equal protection, the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment during a mandatory screening procedure before the complaint was served on the defendants. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
 
Gabbard v. FAA and NTSB (June 19, 2008)(Appeal from National Transportation Safety Board )
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0214p-06.pdf
-  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revoked Charles Gabbard’s airman and medical certificates after he failed a drug test and after the FAA concluded that he piloted a chartered jet with a prohibited drug in his system. Because Gabbard has not shown that the agency’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the law, we deny his petition.
 

Daily Case Updates