Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Taylor 104243En banc, court costs, R.C. 2947.23(C), reversible error, reopening, granted. It is the opinion of the en banc court that the trial court's failure to impose court costs at the sentencing hearing but ordering the defendant to pay the costs in the journal entry of conviction constitutes reversible error. Application to reopen is granted, appeal reinstated, and imposition of costs is reversed. Case remanded to the trial court to allow applicant to move for a waiver of costs.Keough 12/28/2017
GrafTech Internatl., Ltd. v. Pacific Emps. Ins. Co. 105258Insurance; pollution exclusion; environment; duty to defend; coal-tar pitch. Insurer had no duty to defend under a pollution exclusion of an insurance policy. The release of fumes or toxic substances from coal-tar pitch that had allegedly been released into an aluminum manufacturing plant constituted environmental pollution as defined by the policy regardless of whether the release was localized to smaller areas of the plant.Stewart 12/28/2017
State v. Wuensch 105302Crim.R. 52(B)/plain error; ineffective assistance of counsel; R.C. 2907.02(D)/rape shield/prior claim of sexual assault; manifest weight. Under a plain error review, the prosecutor's opening statement and closing argument did not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. Defense counsel had opportunity to cross-examine the witness about the material the prosecutor mentioned and nothing in the record indicates the trial court relied on the statements made by the prosecuting attorney in its opening statement. Likewise, in its closing argument, the prosecuting attorney did not try and bolster the credibility of the witness, but rather attempted to draw a reasonable inference from the evidence presented at trial. Appellant's counsel was not ineffective where he did not object to the reading of writings by the victim. In one writing, appellant was not mentioned; in another, the testimony was redundant to other witness testimony; and in a third, counsel's failure to object can be perceived to be trial tactic. The victim's claim of a prior sexual assault was not shown to be false and was therefore protected under the rape shield provision of R.C. 2907.02. The minor inconsistencies in witness testimony were not such that appellant's convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.Jones 12/28/2017
Wiids Cove II, L.L.C. v. Williams 105377R.C. 5721.40; 11 U.S.C. 362; bankruptcy; automatic stay; successive petitions; foreclosure; forfeiture. Trial court did not err when it ordered sale pursuant to R.C. 5721.40 and subsequent forfeiture of property when there was no indication of stay in proceedings due to a third bankruptcy filing in one year.Stewart 12/28/2017
State v. Thomas 105613Resentencing; vindictive sentencing; rebuttable presumption; maximum sentences. Presumption of vindictive sentencing applied where trial court, after defendant's successful appeal of nonmaximum sentences erroneously imposed based on law at the time of the commission of offenses, resentenced defendant to maximum sentences on remand. Presumption was not rebutted where trial court offered no explanation on the record as to why it imposed maximum sentences on remand when it did not impose maximum sentences originally.Gallagher 12/28/2017
State v. Schellentrager 105652 Kidnapping, Crim.R. 29, lesser-included, abduction, sufficient evidence. Sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's conviction for the lesser-included offense of abduction. The defendant's unprivileged conduct of placing his arm around the victim and leading him away from the area where he was found constituted abduction. The victim testified that he was worried and scared and did not leave to tell his dad because the defendant had his arm around the victim's shoulder.Keough 12/28/2017