Case Update
No big decisions from the Ohio Supreme Court, other than some peremptory affirmances based on its decision the week before in State v. Buehler that courts do not need to order DNA tests of inmates, pursuant to newly-enacted RC 2937.74, if the test would not be outcome-determinative. Nothing new in the US Supreme Court, either. So, on to the courts of appeals:
Criminal. In case involving controlled delivery of UPS package containing drugs, 1st District holds that evidence insufficient to convict because defendant never took package, but says he could be convicted of attempted possession... 10th District reverses grant of expungement of 1979 drug trafficking conviction in which defendant received 3-year mandatory sentence because, even though crime could have been expunged at that time, under current law expungement not allowed for crimes involves mandatory sentencing... 8th District holds that failure to give accomplice instruction mandated by law is plain error... 12th District finds that judge's comments in juvenile delinquency proceeding that juvenile's failure to testify was "critical" to judge's decision was improper consideration of 5th Amendment right and "structural error" requiring reversal...
Civil. 2nd District gives yet another reminder that failure to object to magistrate's decision waives right to appeal from trial court's judgment adopting decision... 6th District tosses out Toledo's ban on weapons in its municipal park's, says newly-enacted RC 9.68, effective last month, allows concealed-carry permit-holders to carry weapons in parks... 8th District affirms trial court's holding that class action re telemarketing scheme should be limited to Ohio citizens because of differences in state law; good review of law on class actions... 12th District holds that claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty were outside of contract, thus not within scope of arbitration clause...
Now this is doing justice: in State v. Irwin, the defendant had been charged with menacing as a result of an altercation at a city council meeting. He represented himself, and sent a letter to the judge stating that he'd gotten had lie detector test taken by a certain company, but requesting a continuance so he could get another test done. The judge denied the continuance, but told him to bring in the results anyway. At trial, of course, the tests were excluded because the prosecution wouldn't stipulate to them. The defendant was convicted, and on appeal complained that if he'd known that he wouldn't have spent the $350 on the test. The appellate court agreed that the trial judge's advice to bring in the results was confusing, so it reversed the fine of $250 and let the rest of the penalty stand.
Comments