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 »

×

What's Up in the 8th

Some funky stuff this week.  Last week, I mentioned that there's a lot of case law from the 8th holding that a frisk for weapons isn't automatic after a stop; even where drugs are involved, the police have to show that they had a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous.  Well, there are 12 judges on the court, which means there are 220 possible 3-judge combinations, and in State v. Franklin, the defendant pulls arguably the worst possible panel for a search issue.  Although the officer says nothing more than that the patdown was done "for our protection," that's enough for the court, citing the language from the Supreme Court decision which says that frisks are "virtually automatic" in drug cases.

Three weeks ago, I argued that the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Kalish creates an opening, however slight, for attacking sentences:  there's language in the opinion which suggests that the reasons the trial court imposed a particular sentence -- that is, it's analysis of the seriousness/recidivism factors -- may be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.  In State v. Nolan, the 8th District seems to buy into that argument:  noting that the trial judge gave consideration to Nolan's mitigating evidence, and to the fact that it was his seventh felony and that he'd committed three probation violations on two of the cases, the court concludes that there's nothing "to suggest that the sentencing decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable."

Some dribs and drabs...  It's long been the law that if the judge puts a defendant on community control sanctions without specifying what prison sentence will be imposed for violation, she can't impose one.  In State v. Goforth, the court holds that this requires the judge to not only specify the sentence at the initial sentencing hearing, but in the journal entry as well.  In State v. Barnes, the court holds that an arrest warrant allows the police to enter a third party's home if they have a reasonable belief that the person named in the warrant is in the house. 

CORRECTION:  Last week I wrote about the latest developments in the continuing saga of Bill Mason v. Open Discovery, a contest mildly evocative of the Godzilla v. Megalon duels.  I opened the post by describing a recent murder case and stated that "prosecutors had played the normal hide-and-seek with witness statements and police reports."

I got a comment on the post from Matt Meyer, one of the county prosecutors, who pointed out that the prosecutors actually had turned over the material requested by the defense.  As can be seen from this article, the fuss seemed to revolve around the fact that the prosecutors hadn't ordered any DNA testing, rather than that they'd tried to hide evidence, or failed to disclose evidence they knew was exculpatory.

Thanks to Matt for pointing this out and correcting the record.

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