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!

March 5th & 6th, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- Wildlife officers / Warrant / Private land
- Writs of mandamus / Real Property
- Search and Seizure
- Prosecutor / ORC 2941.25
- Instructions / ORC 2941.25 / Indictment / Complaint
- Criminal / Evidence
- Writ of habeas corpus
- Employment / Wrongful discharge / Right to bear arms
- Sentencing Guidelines / Reasonable
- Employment / Hostile work environment / Damage Award
- Bankruptcy / Trustee’s preference action
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State v. Coburn (Slip Opinion)(March 5, 2009)(2009-ohio-834)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-834.pdf
-  Statutory privilege to enter private land without warrant - Officer may enter private land pursuant to R.C. 1531.13 when there is good cause to believe law is being violated - Officer may enter private land pursuant to R.C. 1531.14 without good cause to believe law is being violated when officer is acting in normal, peaceful, and lawful pursuit of enforcement of game and fish laws.

State ex rel. Blank v. Beasley (Slip Opinion)(March 5, 2009)(2009-ohio-835)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-835.pdf
-  Writs of mandamus sought to compel appropriation of certain real property - Some of the damage to relators’ property was the necessary, natural, and proximate result of the state’s roadway project - Writs granted in part and denied in part.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
State v. Williams (March 6, 2009)(2009-Ohio-970)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-970.pdf
-  The trial court erred in suppressing evidence obtained as the result of a constitutional roadblock: The sobriety checkpoint and advance-warning signs were planned and placed according to standardized training-manual procedures, and the defendant had ample notice under the circumstances of what was a minimal intrusion; and the fact that he may not have actually seen the posted warning sign along his route of travel did not give rise to a constitutional violation.

State v. Thomas (March 6, 2009)(2009-Ohio-971)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-971.pdf
-  It was harmless error for the prosecutor to comment upon the defendant’s post-arrest silence during closing argument, when the comments were brief, when an inference of guilt from the silence was not stressed to the jury, and when there was other overwhelming evidence supporting the conviction. The trial court properly imposed multiple sentences for two convictions for aggravated robbery pursuant to R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and 2911.01(A)(3), but erred in imposing multiple sentences for two convictions for felonious assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (2): With respect to the aggravated robberies, each offense required proof of an element that the other did not; but the two felonious assaults involved a single victim and were allied offenses of similar import that had not been committed separately or with a separate animus as to each.

State v. Nesbitt (March 6, 2009)(2009-Ohio-972)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-972.pdf
-  In a murder prosecution, the trial court appropriately declined to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, when the evidence did not establish that the defendant had acted under the influence of a sudden passion or fit of rage; acting out of fear does not equate to the sudden passion or fit of rage required by the voluntary-manslaughter statute. When the defendant was charged with felony murder and felonious assault as the predicate offense, the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter with assault as the predicate offense, when the evidence established that the defendant had knowingly caused serious physical harm that had resulted in the victim’s death. The trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences for felony murder and felonious assault because they are not allied offenses of similar import. A felony-murder indictment is not defective when it refers to felonious assault as the predicate offense, and when a separate indictment for the felonious assault alleges that the defendant knowingly caused serious physical harm to the victim.

State v. Winstead (March 6, 2009)(2009-Ohio-973)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-973.pdf
-  The defendant’s conviction for failing to comply with the order or signal of a police officer was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: The principal issue was one of identity, and as the defendant emerged from one side of a park, a police officer observed that he fit the description of the driver of a fleeing vehicle who had recently jumped out of the vehicle and run into the other side of the park; minor discrepancies in the description of the clothing worn by the fleeing suspect and the clothing actually worn by the defendant when he was apprehended were not enough to taint the conviction.
 

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

 

Van Hook v. Anderson (March 6, 2009) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0086p-06.pdf
-  At the request of the majority of the en banc court and in order to avoid the need for an en banc rehearing, the original panel amends its opinion of August 4, 2008, by deleting its discussion of counsel’s failure to seek an independent mental health expert and the failure of counsel to object to the Presentence Report. Therefore, the sole basis for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus is counsel’s failure to investigate mitigating factors. This is an appeal in an Ohio death penalty case by the prisoner, Van Hook, seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because we have decided that counsel failed to conduct a full mitigation investigation and present available mitigating evidence to the sentencer and thereby offered constitutionally ineffective assistance to Van Hook at the sentencing phase of the trial, we will not decide, and we therefore pretermit, the remaining issues. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case to the district court with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus vacating Van Hook’s death sentence unless the State conducts a new penalty phase proceeding within 180 days of remand.

Gary Plona v. UPS (March 6, 2009) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0087p-06.pdf
-  Gary Plona was fired from his job with United Parcel Service (UPS) for violating UPS’s policy that prohibits employees from possessing firearms on its premises. This caused him to sue UPS in federal court, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy embodied in Article I, § 4 of the Ohio Constitution, which guarantees Ohio citizens the right to bear arms for their defense and security. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS, holding that Plona had failed to demonstrate that a clear public policy had been jeopardized by his discharge. In his timely appeal, Plona challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to UPS, as well as its denial of his motion for discovery sanctions against his former employer. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
       

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

 

USA v. Brown (March 5, 2009) (Appeal from W.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0084p-06.pdf
-  Our prior opinion in this case is withdrawn. John S. Brown appeals his 144 month sentence for possession of crack and powder cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he argues that his sentence should be vacated because it was imposed without a presentence report. We find that the district court properly exercised its discretion to impose a sentence without a presentence report under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) and U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 6A1.1(a)(2). Finding Brown’s sentence to have been imposed in a procedurally reasonable manner, we AFFIRM.

Erica Betts v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (March 5, 2009) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0085p-06.pdf
-  Six former employees sued Costco Wholesale Corporation, alleging that (1) they were terminated because they are black, and (2) that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Michigan law. (No claim was premised on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or other federal cause of action.) After the district court denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment, the case proceeded to trial. A deadlocked jury led to an initial mistrial, but a second jury unanimously found in favor of three of the six employees-Darrell Amour, Stephanie Lewis, and LaVearn Thomas-with respect to their hostile-work-environment claims. None of the six employees, however, prevailed on their claims of discriminatory termination. The second jury awarded lost wages to Amour, Lewis, and Thomas. Lewis and Thomas also received damages as compensation for their emotional distress. Costco subsequently filed motions for judgment as a matter of law and to amend the jury’s verdict. The district court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, which requested the court to vacate both the jury’s finding of liability and the employees’ emotional-distress awards. But the court granted Costco’s motion to amend the jury’s verdict by vacating the awards for lost wages. Costco appeals the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law. Amour, Lewis, and Thomas cross-appeal the order vacating the lost-wages awards. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the award of damages for emotional distress to Lewis and Thomas, AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in all other respects, and REMAND the case with instructions to award nominal damages to Amour, Lewis, and Thomas on their hostile-work-environment claims.

CIT Small Business Lending Cor v. L. Kendrick (March 6, 2009) (Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0088p-06.pdf
-  The bankruptcy trustee commenced an adversarial proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 547 to avoid, as a preferential transfer, a mortgage recorded in Kentucky by CIT Small Business Lending Corporation (“CIT”). The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of CIT, but the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) reversed and remanded for a determination whether certain elements of the trustee’s preference action are met. CIT now seeks review of the BAP’s order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
 

Daily Case Updates