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 Update

There were a couple of significant decisions out of the Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday.  One involved the admissibility of statements by a child to doctor in a child sex abuse case, and the other dealt with the due process ramifications of the destruction of evidence by the police.  I'll talk about the first one tomorrow, and the second on Wednesday.  Meanwhile, in the courts of appeals...

In civil cases, the 6th District holds that while a plaintiff needs to prove doctor negligence in a negligent credentialing claim against the hospital, that doesn't mean the doctor has to be included in the lawsuit.  Good decision from the 8th District on attorney disqualification on grounds that he's going to be a witness.  The 8th also affirms summary judgment for an insurance company which rescinded a health insurance policy because of fraudulent statements by the insured in the application.  The 3rd District affirms grant of default judgment against nursing home for failure to provide discovery in personal injury case. 

In criminal cases, the 8th District reverses a denial of a pro se motion to vacate a plea because the trial court didn't give defendant an opportunity to address the court at all, when defendant claimed in the motion that he was pressured by his attorney into taking the deal.  The 9th District throws out a conviction for agreeing to pay a minor for sexual activity; "minor" was actually a detective (imagine that!), and court says a real minor is necessary.  Defendant is indicted in Butler County for receiving stolen property (a car), pleads out to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, then is indicted by Warren County for RSP for the same crime; 12th District says double jeopardy means you can't do that sort of thing.  D'oh!  9th District says that defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his plea to escape, since he wasn't under valid form of control -- post-release control was not included in the JE of his sentencing for crime he supposedly "escaped" from. 

Finally, courtesy of the 6th District, a primer on how to get sued for malpractice, in a personal injury case that you filed in Richland County, but was transferred to Woods County:

  1. Don't respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment
  2. Instead, file a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, but in the wrong county
  3. After the motion for summary judgment is granted, wait eleven months before filing a motion to vacate it, claiming that the dismissal in the wrong county is "excusable neglect"
  4. Don't put anything in the motion about a meritorious defense you might have had to the summary judgment

Rinse.  Repeat as necessary.

Search

Recent Entries

  • June 23, 2017
    Crime and the First Amendment
    Facebook and sex offenders, and encouraging someone to kill himself
  • June 20, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    I come a cropper, plus inventory searches and mandatory probation
  • June 19, 2017
    Case Update - SCOTUS
    What's coming up in the US Supreme Court in the next two weeks
  • June 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    After weeks in the desert, we come upon an oasis of defense wins
  • June 7, 2017
    A switch in time
    Why what the Supreme Court did in Aalim II and Gonzales II is a bad thing
  • June 6, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A turnabout on prior calculation and design, and harmless error in all its manifestations
  • June 5, 2017
    Case Update
    A death penalty case, fourteen years after the crime, and we're just getting started. And two appellate decisions on search and seizure.
  • May 31, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    "What's a law enforcement accountability activist?" asked someone never, but the answer is here. Plus, cell phone experts, joinder, and the fading glory that was State v. Hand.
  • May 30, 2017
    Case Update
    One searches SCOTUSblog in vain for decisions which would be of interest to the uncounted hordes of this blog's regular readers; one of the Court's opinions last week deals with the Hague Service Convention's rules on international service by mail,...
  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes