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.
Comments