Uncategorized

Statements Made by State Employees Under Threat of Job Loss Must be Suppressed

/

State v. Graham, 2013-Ohio-2114.  The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution concerning self-incrimination require the suppression of statements made by employees of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR”) during an investigation conducted by the Ohio inspector general (“OIG”).  The employees’ statements were coerced because they […]

Statements Made by State Employees Under Threat of Job Loss Must be Suppressed Read Post »

Statute Requiring Appeals of Denial of Postconviction Relief re. DNA Testing Go to Supreme Court is Constitutional

/

State v. Noling, 2013 Ohio 1764,  Provision of the DNA testing statute does not violate the Ohio Constitution (Article IV, sections 2(B)(2)(c) and 3(B)(2)) by mandating that the denial of applications for postconviction DNA testing in death penalty cases must be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Ohio rather than to an intermediate court

Statute Requiring Appeals of Denial of Postconviction Relief re. DNA Testing Go to Supreme Court is Constitutional Read Post »

Does Governor’s Pardon Entitle Offender to Sealing of Records?

/

On April 10, 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in State v. Boykin, Case nos. 2012-0808 and 2012-1216.    The issue is:  When the governor grants an unconditional pardon of an offender’s criminal convictions, does that action entitle the offender to have the court records of his or her pardoned convictions sealed?  Appellant’s

Does Governor’s Pardon Entitle Offender to Sealing of Records? Read Post »

DNA Profile can be Retained for Future Use Despite Acquittal, Ohio Supreme Court Holds

/

This case came out in November.  I originally did not include it in this blog, as the analysis is of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, although the opinion does mention the Ohio Constitution.  Professor Steinglass reminds me, however,  that,  “It is important to monitor the various ways the court nuances its statements

DNA Profile can be Retained for Future Use Despite Acquittal, Ohio Supreme Court Holds Read Post »

Indictment is Constitutionally Sufficient if it Names the Schedule in which the Drug Appears

/

Indictment for a drug trafficking offense is sufficient under Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution if it names the schedule in which the drug appears, even though the specific drug is not named.  State v. Jackson, 134 Ohio St.3d 184, 2012-Ohio-5561.  (Decided Dec. 4, 2012)

Indictment is Constitutionally Sufficient if it Names the Schedule in which the Drug Appears Read Post »

Supreme Court will Hear Standing Issue in JobsOhio Case

/

A divided Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear proposition of law number 3, the standing issue,  in ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. JobsOhio, 2012-1272.  Docket.  Here is a  Plain Dealer article on the decision. There is an interesting pro-standing amicus brief by the conservative group, the  1851 Center. Besides the standing issue, appellant’s other propositions of law

Supreme Court will Hear Standing Issue in JobsOhio Case Read Post »

Oral Argument: Constitutionality of Requiring Direct Appeal to Supreme Court of Denial of Postconviction DNA Test in Death Penalty Case

/

Does a provision of the DNA testing statute violate the Ohio Constitution (Article IV, sections 2(B)(2)(c) and 3(B)(2)) by mandating that the denial of applications for postconviction DNA testing in death penalty cases must be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Ohio rather than to an intermediate court of appeals?  Oral argument preview. State

Oral Argument: Constitutionality of Requiring Direct Appeal to Supreme Court of Denial of Postconviction DNA Test in Death Penalty Case Read Post »

Court Could Not Apply Open Courts Provision to Equine Actitivities Immunity Statute Because Parties did not Raise the Issue

/

Smith v. Landfair, 2012 -Ohio- 5692, 12/6/12, This case was NOT decided on open courts provision of the Ohio Constitution, Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16, because the parties did not raise the issue in briefs or oral arguments.  According to the dissent, R.C. 2305.321 , the equine activities immunity statute, violates the Ohio Constitution,

Court Could Not Apply Open Courts Provision to Equine Actitivities Immunity Statute Because Parties did not Raise the Issue Read Post »

Statute Requiring Preserving Biological Evidence in Possession of Government at Effective Date of Statute did not invoke Retroactivity Clause

/

State v  Roberts, 2012 -Ohio- 5684, 12/6/12, The obligation to preserve and catalog criminal-offense-related biological evidence imposed upon certain government entities by R.C. 2933.82 applies to evidence in the possession of those entities at the time of the statute’s effective date.  Applying the statute to evidence in possession of the government does not amount to

Statute Requiring Preserving Biological Evidence in Possession of Government at Effective Date of Statute did not invoke Retroactivity Clause Read Post »

Scroll to Top