Case Update
Okay, I lied again. I said on Friday we'd have an abbreviated week here, with posts just on Monday and Tuesday. Turns out that the only Ohio Supreme Court decision from last week, State v. Cargile, deserves some more extensive treatment than I'd give it here, and there are a couple of 4th Amendment decisions out of the 8th District that are worth talking about. So we'll do that on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. Besides, the major reason for the abbreviated schedule was that I was going to spend the weekend converting my lawn into something customarily found in residential areas, as opposed to African wildlands. Unfortunately, this weekend apparently coincided with the advent of Cleveland's Gray Days, an annual event stretching roughly from October to May.
Let's head straight for the stuff from the courts of appeals, where it's a fairly meager slate...
Civil. 1st District holds that "discovery rule" for statute of limitations contained in RC 2305.09 for fraud applies only to fraud actions, not to those for intentional infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy... 8th District says that trial judge erred in quashing subpoena for documents allegedly protected by work product privilege without reviewing the documents in camera or conducting an evidentiary hearing... 9th District reverses trial court's holding that lack of provision for spousal support in antenuptial agreement was unconscionable... 5th District affirms grant of new trial where jury in personal injury case awarded only medical expenses...
Criminal. 2nd District rejects State's contention that providing prosecutor's discovery packet solved any Colon problems in indictment... 8th District holds that domestic violence and rape are not allied offenses... Defendant cannot raise challenge that offenses he pled to were allied where he agreed to sentence, says 12th district...
He who hesitates isn't always lost. In State v. Mixon, the case is scheduled for pretrial on January 5, 2009, which, it turns out, is the last day the defendant can be tried under the speedy trial statute. Mixon files a motion to dismiss on that day. The state announces at the pretrial that it's ready to try the case that day; defense counsel says she only prepared for a pretrial, and isn't ready to try the case. The judge dismisses it, but the 2nd District reverses, saying "nothing in the record before us that would suggest that there was either no, or at best a remote, possibility that the case could have proceeded to trial that day." Of course, if the defendant had waited until the next day to file the motion... Still, a bad decision. If everybody's goofed up to the point of not realizing that speedy trial time expires until the very last day it does, it hardly seems reasonable to hold that that can be avoided by the simple technique of everybody pretending that a trial can be held that day.
Don't smoke 'em if you got 'em. In State ex rel. Martin v. Collins, the 10th District rejects the contention of Martin, an inmate at one of the state's fine correctional institutions, that the state-wide smoking prohibitions enacted in 2006 give him a "clear legal right to smoke" in prison.
Comments