There were a couple of significant decisions out of the Supreme Court on Wednesday.  In State v. Lather, the court held that a waiver of Miranda rights didn’t have to be express, but could be inferred from the defendant’s conduct.   And in State v. Sanchez, the court held that the filing of a motion in limine tolled the running of the speedy trial statute.  It also held that an immigration detainer didn’t keep the defendant from getting the benefit of the triple-count provisions of the statute for time spent in jail.  I’ll be talking about both of those in more detail next week.

Now, for decisions in the courts of appeal…

6th District vacates summary judgment in case where BWC investigators posed as customers to enter home of woman receiving PTD benefits, find that warrant was required… 10th District affirms summary judgment on slip on ice and snow, rejects claim that plaintiff could rely on defendant property owner’s clearing ice and snow on previous occasions, distinguishes that from landlord-tenant cases… 9th District affirms summary judgment in attractive nuisance case, says homeowner’s locking fence around swimming pool satisfied duty to use reasonable care in protecting children… Landlord had “actual notice” of tenant’s new address, thus tenant did not have to provide him with written notice to trigger right to security deposit, says 2nd District…

8th District vacates sentence because judge didn’t allow defendant his right of allocution… 1st District reverses grant of speedy trial motion, finding that under Crim.R. 45(A), time doesn’t count if last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday… 5th District reverses multiple felony convictions for sexual offenses involving children, holding that evidence of prior gross sexual imposition was improperly admitted as other acts evidence… 8th District holds that gross sexual imposition and rape not allied offenses, where defendant touched victim’s breasts before penetrating her…

And finally, people, please:  don’t forget that a motion in limine doesn’t mean squat in the court of appeals.  Happened again in Columbus v. Thevenin.  The defense found out the day before trial that the prosecution was going to call witnesses that weren’t on the discovery response, and filed a motion in limine.  The trial court overruled the motion on the grounds that defendant hadn’t filed a motion to compel discovery.  That was bogus; the Supreme Court decided almost twenty years ago, in Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 OSt3d 1, that a filing of a motion to compel wasn’t a prerequisite for sanctions for failure to provide discovery.  But the court of appeals still affirmed the conviction.  Why?  Because after the motion in limine was overruled, defense counsel didn’t object to the witnesses testifying.