Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Tanned, rested & ready

Well, I had a nice vacation, so let's get back to work.  The big decision from the Ohio Supreme Court last week was State v. Haines, a 6-1 decision holding that where the defense impeaches the credibility of a victim of domestic violence, the prosecutor can use expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome to rehabilitate the witness, particularly on questions like why she stayed with the abuser, or why she didn't report the abuse.  The Court imposes some substantial restrictions on the use of the testimony, but there are some logical inconsistencies with the decision.  I'll do a full post on it later this week.  As for the courts of appeals: 

Civil.  8th District holds that discharged municipal employee need not exhaust civil service administrative remedies before filing discriminatory discharge complaint... 9th District holds that open and obvious doctrine does not apply where employee drops planter on customer's head -- time out for our Moment of Duh -- and rejects employer's claim liability is barred because customer should have anticipated employee's negligence... Money paid by wife's parents for husband's medical school tuition not a liability or asset in divorce case, rules 10th District... Father's sending of one Christmas card and gift card in previous year sufficient "communication" to require his consent for adoption, 12th District holds... 9th District upholds zero award in PI case where defendant admitted liability that caused "some injury," holding that "some injury" does not mean "some compensable injury"...

Criminal.  3rd District rules that no contest plea preserves appealability of motion to suppress illegally seized evidence, but not rulings on motions in limine... 5th District reverses sexual predator finding because trial court did not make a finding on whether defendant was likely to reoffend, but remands it back to trial court for that determination; gosh, I wonder how that'll turn out... 6th District upholds suppression of evidence where detention after traffic stop exceeded permissible bounds... Good case out of the 3rd District on excited utterances in child sex abuse cases:  court holds that statement made when child seemed merely "confused," not upset, doesn't qualify...

And if you want to take a trip in the Wayback Machine, check out the 9th District's decision in this case.  The defendant argued that the search should be suppressed, because the affidavit for the warrant didn't include any information on the reliability of the informant, and the court spent nine paragraphs refuting that contention, without ever once mentioning the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement.  It's somewhat refreshing to see a court discuss whether or not an affidavit did in fact establish probable cause, as if it really mattered. 

Like they say, nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Search

Recent Entries

  • January 17, 2018
    What's Up in the 8th
    When not to decide cases on allied offenses and pre-indictment delay
  • January 11, 2018
    Case Update
    Three new decisions from the Ohio Supreme Court
  • January 10, 2018
    To the barricades!
    Why I'm a threat to the Ohio state government
  • January 5, 2018
    Search and seizure in the digital age
    Do the cops need a warrant to get cell phone data?
  • January 3, 2018
    What's Up in the 8th
    We talk about me a lot, but there's some other stuff, too
  • January 2, 2018
    He's baaaack
    So I thought I'd start my first post in six weeks by explaining why it's my first post in six weeks. Ever run into somebody and ask the obligatory question, "How are you doing?" And they proceed to tell you...
  • November 15, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Plea withdrawals (again), sexual predator hearings, and an appellate law question
  • November 7, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Don't listen to prosecutors about the law, good new/bad news jokes on appeal, and the Byzantine course of a death penalty case
  • October 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Trying to change the past
  • October 16, 2017
    En banc on sentencing
    The 8th District takes a look at what State v. Marcum means