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

Summertime... and the blogging is easy...  Actually, no, because there's not that much to write about.  The only "decision" of consequence by the Ohio Supreme Court this past week was the dismissal of the appeal from the 8th District's decision in State v. Garltic.  The backstory is that Garltic had been charged with felonious assault and attempted murder in a stabbing.  The jury had found him guilty of the latter, but guilty of the lesser offense of aggravated assault. 

Garltic argued that his lawyer was ineffective for not asking for a lesser instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter, and the 8th agreed:  since the jury had found serious provocation in order to convict of aggravated assault, it would have found serious provocation to reduce the attempted murder charge as well.  It remanded the case with instructions to retry Garltic for attempted voluntary manslaughter.  The State appealed it, the defense tried to get it dismissed, and after much Sturm und Drang, the State moved to dismiss the case:  turned out Garltic was brought into court a couple of weeks ago, pled guilty to amended charges of aggravated assault and attempted voluntary manslaughter, and, having served his sentence, was sent on his way.  The Supreme Court agreed to dismiss, and there's one less case I'll have to write about down the road.

On to the courts of appeals...

Criminal.  6th District says that two police officers qualified as "experts in drug organizations," could give expert testimony that defendant was serving as lookout during discussion of drug buy... 9th District concludes that if it decides trial judge improperly imposed post-release controls, judgment becomes a nullity and it no longer has jurisdiction to determine defendant's other assignments of error... After juvenile defendant invoked Miranda rights, police brought mother to station, she convinces son to talk; 6th District affirms denial of motion to suppress statement, rejects claim that she was an "agent of state"... 5th District says tip from identified citizen informant was sufficient to warrant stop of vehicle... 9th District holds that trial court erred in admitting officer's hearsay testimony as to age of defendant, where testimony based solely on review of uncertified BMV records...

Civil.  9th District holds that despite receiving jury award of only $357 in auto accident suit where plaintiff claimed over $5,200 in medical expenses, plaintiff was still the "prevailing party" for purposes of being awarded costs of deposition... 6th District rules that parents whose parental rights were terminated not entitled to appointed counsel for discretionary appeal to Supreme Court... Prosecutor not immune from malicious prosecution suit for "investigative or administrative" functions, but meeting with witness to clarify medical records was within quasi-judicial function, so immunity applied, says 10th District... Simple claim that defendant "due to inadvertence" didn't hire counsel until after default judgment granted does not entitle defendant to relief from judgment, 9th District rules... Domestic relations court hearing petition for civil protection order did not have subject matter jurisdiction to also hear motion from petitioner for award of damages for conversion...

They forgot "violation of the Kitchen Sink Act."  In Williams v. Griffith, the plaintiff administrator filed a complaint listing the following causes of action:

wrongful death, medical malpractice, malicious wrongful death, false imprisonment, tampering and destroying records, interference with family relations, illegal searches and invasions of privacy, violation of patient rights, menacing threats, intentional infliction of emotional distress, professional malpractice, violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, violation of HIPPA regulations, child abuse, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Sections 1961-1968, Title 18, U.S.Code ("RICO"), loss of consortium, conspiracy to commit fraud, assault and battery, and cruel and unusual punishment.

Yes, it was a pro se complaint.


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