Case Update
No shortage of big decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court this week. In State v. Kalish, the court defines the standard to be used by appellate courts in reviewing sentences; later this week I'll explain why it doesn't mean anything. In State v. Swann, it decides that the application of a hearsay rule to prohibit evidence offered by a defendant doesn't violate his constitutional right to present a defense; later this week, I'll explain why this is a big deal.
Then there's McFadden v. Cleveland State Univ., in which the court answers the question of what to do with dueling appellate panels: if a panel determines that its ruling would be in conflict with a prior ruling from the district, it must convene an en banc panel to resolve the dispute. A rule is currently being drafted for this purpose, and we'll take a look at it when it comes down.
Finally, there's a few dribs and drabs. In re Guardianship of Santrucek stands for the simple proposition that if you haven't filed an application for a guardianship (because, say, you're not an Ohio resident), you don't have standing to appeal the probate court's granting guardianship to someone else. Dombroski v. Wellpoint, Inc. deals with piercing the corporate veil, in a way insufficient to arouse any interest on my part in reading it, let alone writing about it. And there were no disciplinary cases this week, so everybody must've been good. Without further adieu, let's take a look at what happened in the courts of appeals...
Civil. 5th District affirms grant of default judgment as sanction for failure to respond to discovery... 8th District affirms transfer of custody case to Pennsylvania court under forum non conveniens doctrine... 9th District holds that libel does not fall within any of the exceptions to a city's sovereign immunity... 5th District affirms trial court's striking of answer filed two days after time limit; defendant had requested three extensions... 6th District reverses disqualification of attorney; good discussion of standards for determination of disqualification when attorney will be witness... 12th District affirms grant of child custody to husband, based upon wife's interference with visitation...
Criminal. State files indictment just within statute of limitations, dismisses indictment a year later, reindicts a year after that; 8th District says that second indictment does not relate back to first, dismisses case... 8th also tosses an inventory search, stating that such a search does not permit search of closed container in trunk... 6th District rejects claim that DUI defendant was entitled to alcohol expert at state expense... 3rd District says that amendment of indictment count alleging child endangerment to include recklessness intent element permissible under Rule 7(D), didn't invalidate plea... 12th District holds court not required to advise defendant who pled guilty to importuning of sex offender registration requirements... 9th District holds that Adam Walsh Act does not violate Retroactivity Clause of Ohio Constitution...
Dumb Stupid decision of the week. The police respond to a drug complaint. The defendant and another guy are smoking dope on the porch; when they see the cops, they run into the apartment and lock the door. The refused police entreaties to come out for over an hour. On that basis, the 2nd District upholds the conviction, ruling that "the officer is entitled to the reasonable co-operation of the suspected misdemeanant within the residence."
So let me understand this. If I'm in my house, and the police want to come in, and they don't have a warrant, if I don't let them in, I'm guilty of obstructing official business?
Comments