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 »

×

Case roundup

Apparently, there have been a lot of changes of heart among criminal defendants in the 2nd District; there were about five decisions last week from there on withdrawals of guilty pleas.  One of them even worked, a DWI in muni court, where the judge apparently took the defendant in chambers and took a plea without a record.  The others... well, not so much.  This one gives a good discussion of the factors to be used in determining the issue.  Now, on to the other courts:

Civil.  Whether clear puddle of water on floor was "open and obvious" was question for jury, 8th District rules, reversing grant of summary judgment; much better result than this one last year from 1st on same facts... 10th District reverses grant of summary judgment on cause of action not put in issue by defendant's motion... Mortgage interest, utilities, and insurance paid by sellers after buyers breached contract to purchase home not recoverable items of damages, 12th District holds... 5th District reaffirms public policy exception to at-will employment, prohibiting discharge for employee's statement that she would consult an attorney because of reduction in her bonus...

Criminal.  3rd District holds that failure to provide suspect's name to police not affirmative act required for conviction of obstructing official business... Agreed sentence does not implicate Apprendi/Blakely/Foster cases, 8th District holds, and is not appealable... Good discussion of adoption of statement by silence in this 9th District case, with a reminder that if you're in jail, it's not a good idea to discuss your case on the phone... 10th District rejects claim that applying Foster to crimes committed before its date, so as to raise potential sentences, violates rule that criminal statutes be strictly construed against state (rule of lenity)...

Reason #113 why I don't do work in Juvenile Court anymore.  In 1998, Archie Harrison filed a motion in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court to modify his child support payments.  He retired the following year.  In 2005, the court finally got around to ruling on the motion he'd filed seven years earlier, decided that it could only consider his income from 1998, and raised his child support payments by $200 a month.

The 8th District reversed.

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