The Library will be closed on 5/30/2022 for Memorial day. We will resume reference on Tuesday, May 31.
State of Ohio vs. Jordan Nash
Quote from Judge Bergeron:
In the aftermath of a domestic dispute, defendant-appellant Jordan Nash was convicted of domestic violence and menacing. On appeal, he maintains that his convictions ran against the weight of the evidence and alleges deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel. But the record provides no basis for reversal, and we accordingly overrule his assignments of error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Defendant’s convictions for domestic violence and menacing were not against the manifest weight of the evidence merely because the trial court believed the prosecution testimony over the defense testimony.
Defense counsel’s failure to admit photographs of defendant’s alleged leg injury did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where the record did not establish that any such photographs exist, let alone a reasonable probability that they would alter the outcome of the proceedings.
Su Kang Gauthier vs. Forrest Gauthier
Quote from Judge Myers:
This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a garnishment action in which plaintiff appellee Su Kang Gauthier (“Su”) sought to execute on a judgment that she had obtained against defendant-appellant Forrest Gauthier (“Forrest”). We consider whether the trial court erred in failing to find that Forrest had already satisfied the judgment by setting it off against a separate debt that Forrest alleged Su owed to him.
While Su may in fact owe Forrest a separate debt, he may not collect that debt by offsetting it in a garnishment proceeding. We find no error in the trial court’s failure to find that Forrest had already satisfied Su’s judgment, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
The trial court, in an entry ordering the disbursement of garnished funds, did not err in failing to find that defendant had already satisfied plaintiff’s judgment by setting that judgment off against a separate debt owed by plaintiff to defendant where defendant introduced no entry of satisfaction of judgment and where defendant had no formal judgment in his favor setting forth the amount of plaintiff’s debt.
Rick Carlson vs. City of Cincinnati vs. Tuscan Hillside Development, LLC
Quote from Judge Winkler:
This is the second appeal in a civil action involving the city of Cincinnati and property owners from the same family who were found liable in 2019 for money damages related to those properties. The city of Cincinnati appeals the order of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas striking a postappeal filing by the city seeking to correct an undetected error in the record related to which family member’s financial obligation arising from the 2019 judgment had been satisfied before the first appeal was taken. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the cause for further proceedings.
The law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply to preclude relief on remand after an appeal when the subsequent proceedings involve different factual records.
A party may not amend an entry of satisfaction of judgment that in effect modifies the trial court’s judgment without satisfying the provisions of Civ.R. 60(B).
State of Ohio vs. Joel Jordan
C-210199 / C-210198
Quote from Judge Bock
Appellant-defendant Joel Jordan appeals his conviction for one count of sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(2) in the appeal numbered C210198. For the following reasons, we sustain Jordan’s first assignment of error, reverse his conviction for sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(2), and discharge him on that count. The appeal numbered C-210199 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We remand the appeal numbered C-210199 to the trial court for sentencing and an entry of a final, appealable order.
Defendant’s conviction for sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(2) was not supported by sufficient evidence because the state failed to produce evidence that defendant knew that the victim’s ability to appraise the nature of or control of defendant’s conduct was substantially impaired where no witnesses testified that the victim’s disability was self-evident, the victim’s testimony did not suggest her cognitive disability was discernable, and defendant did not provide medical treatment or have access to the victim’s medical records as the residential facility night supervisor. [But see DISSENT: The evidence adduced by the state showed that defendant used his role as a residential-facility supervisor to lure a blind, cognitively-impaired victim into his office under the pretense of his concern for the victim's physical health, and that once he got the victim into a state of undress, he engaged her in sexual contact; therefore, sufficient evidence exists to uphold the defendant's conviction for sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.06(A)(2)].
State of Ohio vs. Jeff Johns
C-210338 / C-210337
Quote from Judge Crouse:
Defendant-appellant Jeff Johns appeals his misdemeanor convictions for violation of a protection order and criminal damaging. In one assignment of error, Johns contends that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The trial court did not lose its way in determining that defendant violated the terms of a protection order and was guilty of criminal damaging where the protected person testified that she saw defendant, from one foot away, standing on her back porch removing a security camera from her property.
State of Ohio vs. James Williams
Quote from Judge Myers:
Defendant-appellant James Williams appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment dismissing his R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief. Because the common pleas court failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law—as required by R.C. 2953.21(H)—with its entry dismissing the petition, we are constrained to reverse the trial court’s judgment. We remand this cause so that the common pleas court can make the appropriate findings of fact, if any, and conclusions of law.
The common pleas court’s entry denying defendant’s R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief is reversed, and the cause is remanded, because the court’s judgment did not include findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by R.C. 2953.21(H), which effectively precluded meaningful judicial review.
State of Ohio vs. Montex Henson
Quote from Judge Zayas:
The record shows that on October 25, 2020, at 10:13 p.m., Cincinnati police officers were dispatched to the Westwood area of Cincinnati on a report from the Shot Spotter Alert System of shots fired. Shot Spotter is a system of sensors placed throughout the city that can register the sound of gunfire and distinguish it from other sounds such as fireworks. A live dispatcher for Shot Spotter receives the alert and determines whether the sound was in fact gunfire and if there were multiple gunshots. The system then triangulates the location of the sound to provide a radius on a map as to where the shots came from, and the dispatcher relays that information to the police.
He saw a man later identified as Henson “halfway in the back of his vehicle.” Even though the plain-clothes officer stated that Henson was alone, video from Officer Wallace’s body camera showed that he was placing three young children in the rear seat of his vehicle when he arrived. Officer Wallace and his partner approached Henson and asked if he had heard any gunfire. Henson replied that he had not.
Officer Wallace testified that it was rainy and dark. When he told Henson that he was going to pat him down for weapons, Henson became “very agitated,” and “kind of turned his body away” from the officer. Officer Wallace told Henson that he was going to pat him down for weapons because there were shots fired in the area, and he wanted to make sure Henson was not armed. Officer Wallace found a loaded handgun in Henson’s waistband. He then placed Henson under arrest. Methamphetamine and cocaine were found on his person.