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

The pickings from the Ohio Supreme Court are so paltry -- the big announcement this week:  "The Court issued nine merit decisions without opinions, 14 motion and procedural rulings, agreed to hear six cases, and declined to hear 86 cases" -- that I've been compelled to scout the oral argument calendar for something to write about here.  Best I can see is some coming up in the beginning of next month:  State v. Chambliss, which raises the issue of whether denial of a criminal defendant's counsel of choice is a final appealable order, and State v. Williams, which addresses the retroactivity and ex post facto concerns of the Adam Walsh Act, an issue left over from Bodyke.  Chambliss is a bizarre case, as I indicated when I discussed the 8th District's decision on it two years ago.  I'll have more on it, needless to say, when it actually happens.

Nothing's actually happening in the US Supreme Court, either.  I even went to the lengths of checking out SCOTUSblog list of "petitions that we're watching," i.e., cases that they think the Supreme Court might agree to hear.  There's one involving the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and another where the key issue is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act.  You better believe I'll be focused like a laser on those.  If they ever go anywhere, that is.

On to the courts of appeals, where they're not just talking about doing stuff, they're doing it.

Civil.  Judge need not hold evidentiary hearing on motion to vacate where motion is untimely, 8th District rules... 1st District says appellate court cannot consider transcript of magistrate's hearing if it wasn't provided to trial court with the objections to magistrate's decision... Where assignment of mortgage made after foreclosure was filed, assignee bank lacked standing to pursue action, says 8th District...

Criminal.  Judge need not advise defendant at plea of possibility of consecutive sentences unless law requires them to be run consecutively, e.g., failure to comply, says 8th District... 10th District upholds joinder of charges, says evidence of one robbery would have been admissible in the other under 404(B), since crimes followed similar pattern and were geographically proximal... Where restitution order did not specify how money was to be divided among the three victims, it wasn't a final appealable order, says 4th District... Felony murder and child endangering are allied, offenses, merge, when same act, shaking baby, caused baby's death, says 12th District... 12th also holds that felonious assault, child endangering, and domestic violence were all allied offenses...

Things we never learned in law school.  One of the headnotes provided by the court in the 1st District's decision last week in Cwik v. Cwik:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the terms of an informed-consent/embryo-cryopreservation contract, where the husband failed to demonstrate either that the contract was unconscionable or that it violated the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

We're not in Kansas any more, Dorothy.  In State v. Sumpter, the court finds that the prosecution committed a discovery violation by withholding oral statements made by the defendant, but decides it's harmless error.  The statements, given after defendant and an accomplice were stopped for speeding and a search of their car turned up nine pounds of marijuana, was in protest of the officer's statement to him that this was a felony amount.  He claimed repeatedly that ten pounds would be a felony, apparently referring to California law.

Don't know if travel guides cover that sort of thing, but they should.

Let's play, "Guess the Outcome!"  The opening paragraph of the 10th District's decision in Graham v. Mansfield Corr. Inst. describes the plaintiff's pro se filing thusly

On November 18, 2009, Nathan A. Graham filed a lawsuit against Mansfield Correctional Institution ("MCI") where he was incarcerated. He alleges that certain photographs of his had been taken and not returned to him. As part of his filing, he acknowledged filing 14 other lawsuits previously.

The court had granted judgment for Graham in the amount of forty-five cents.  The judgment was affirmed.


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