Weekly Roundup
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that polygraph tests could not be routinely ordered as a condition of community control sanctions for juvenile sex offenders, and that there must be a showing of particularized need. The Court didn't reach the 5th Amendment issue of compelled testimony, and the applicability of the decision to adult sex offender cases is questionable: the case involved a learning-disabled 11-year-old, and the Court specifically distinguished that from situations involving adults. I'll have more on the decision next week. Now, on to the freightload of cases that have come down since I last did a Weekly Roundup two weeks ago.
8th District affirms trial court's ruling that arbitration provision in mortgage loan agreement doesn't apply; excellent discussion of when claim does not fall within purview of arbitration clause... 9th District affirms grant of custody to father; good review of law pertaining to requirements for award of custody to nonparent... 5th District holds that irrebuttable presumption of disclosed confidences requires disqualification of attorney from representing husband in post-decree child support matter where he represented wife in divorce... Reminder from 9th District that time for refiling after voluntary dismissal is one year from filing notice, not one year from when court journalizes filing... RC 2305.15(A), which tolls statute of limitations while defendant out of state, unconstitutional as applied to nonresidents, holds 2nd District...
8th District affirms trial court's grant of suppression motion, finding no basis for traffic stop; most notable aspect of case is that police officers agreed stop did not take place in "high crime" area... 10th District points out there's no Crawford violation in admission of social worker's hearsay testimony about what victim told her, when victim herself testifies at trial... 9th District upholds forcing defendant to trial without counsel where court had previously granted two day-of-trial continuances to allow defendant to obtain an attorney, and defendant filed third one day prior to trial... Trial court can't increase sentence above that originally imposed when finding defendant violated conditions of judicial release, 8th District rules... 5th District holds that prosecutor can comment on defendant's failure to call witnesses... Despite only small laceration to back of head, victim's severe headaches and disorientation sufficient to show serious physical harm for felonious assault conviction, rules 6th District... Excellent discussion of factors for granting new trial on basis of newly discovered evidence in this case by 1st District, reversing trial court's denial of motion...
You might want to check the docket sometime. Weird one out of the 8th District. A party files a mandamus action on October 3rd, asking the appellate court to order the trial judge to rule on a motion to vacate filed on March 29th. The court of appeals dismissed it as moot. Why? Because the trial judge ruled on the motion on April 12th, two weeks after it was filed.
Anybody want to guess what the ruling was? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
Comments