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

Take three sentencing cases, add two search decisions, toss in a couple of Colon issues and a pinch of some weird sex case, bring to boil, simmer for twenty minutes, and you've got the normal 8th District weekly stew.  Let's take a look...

The moral of State v. Bell is that if you're going to beat someone half to death with a rock, it's probably not a good idea to do it in a place where they have video surveillance.  The sentencing judge took a look at the video and gave Bell maximum consecutive sentences of twenty years for attempted murder and aggravated robbery, despite Bell's rap sheet consisting of only a 1995 theft conviction, and the court affirms.  In State v. Quinones, the defendant claims the judge didn't consider 2929.11 and 2929.12 in the sentencing, and sure enough, there's nothing in the record indicating he did.  Doesn't matter; the court holds that "where the record is silent, a presumption exists that the trial court has considered the factors."  I know this is the law, but it's stupid; how in the world would you ever overcome this presumption?  If you're going to have statutes which require a sentencing judge to consider certain factors, is it too much trouble to require him to at least mumble something about how he did that?

A couple of Colon cases, too, including  a rare reversal on that issue.  In State v. Dzelajlija, the defendant had been convicted of robbery with physical harm and robbery by force.  No mens rea was specified in the indictment for either one.  The court holds that the proper intent element was "recklessness" for both, and that the failure to include that in any aspect of the trial mirrored the situation in Colon, and was therefore structural error requiring reversal.  The defendant doesn't fare as well in State v. Hodges, where the kidnapping statute is at issue.  That statute says a person can't restrain another "for the purpose of" engaging in some other felony, and the court says that's all the intent that's necessary.

As for civil cases, you gotta love it.  Doctor treats patient for the soft tissue injuries from two auto accidents.  Patient runs up $15,000 bill.  Doctor sues patient.  Patient files counterclaim for malpractice, claiming bills were excessive for care rendered.  Counterclaim dismissed, so doctor sues patient's attorney for abuse of process.  Here's where it gets weird.  (Here???)  The difference between abuse of process and malicious prosecution is that in the former, the lawsuit's valid but is being used for an ulterior purpose, while in the latter the lawsuit's bogus.  In fact, the first element of abuse of process is that the lawsuit was "properly initiated and supported by probable cause."  In Kavlich v. Hildebrand, the doctor asserted that the lawyer unilaterally filed the malpractice counterclaim without getting his client's approval, to force a settlement of the fee dispute.  But that means the suit wasn't "properly initiated"!  So the court affirms the summary judgment against the doctor, and you can read the decision for yourself, and then your head will hurt just like mine did.

Finally, the early nominee for Skeevy Case of the Year goes to State v. Hartman, which proposes to answer the question:  if a 50-year-old man offers an 8-year-old girl forty bucks to do a lapdance on him, can he defeat a conviction for importuning -- soliciting someone under 13 to engage in sexual activity -- by claiming that the request for a lap dance fell short of the definition of sexual activity, because an 8-year-old wouldn't know what a lap dance was?  The answer is no, but it could be that Hartman simply picked the wrong 8-year-old; this one did know, the detective testified, because her two cousins were strippers.  One might imagine that Hartman's case was not helped by his admission to the detective "that it was possible that [the victim] could see his exposed penis because of the way he had been sitting."

I always pay careful attention to how I'm sitting to avoid just that problem, and I'd suggest you do, too.

Search

Recent Entries

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture