Ohio Supreme Court Decisions

Right to Confront Witnesses Violated by Admitting Accomplice’s Out of Court Statements

/

The Ohio Supreme Court decided the following case on September 5, 2013: State v. Ricks, 2013-Ohio-3712.  Admitting an alleged accomplice’s statements through the testimony of an investigating officer violated a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution.  […]

Right to Confront Witnesses Violated by Admitting Accomplice’s Out of Court Statements Read Post »

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 »

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 »

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 »

Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose Does Not Violate Open Courts Provision

/

Ruther v. Kaiser,2012-Ohio-5685, The medical-malpractice statute of repose found in R.C. 2305.113(C) does not extinguish a vested right and thus does not violate the open courts provision, Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16. (Hardy v. VerMeulen, 32 Ohio St.3d 45, 512 N.E.2d 626 (1987), overruled.)

Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose Does Not Violate Open Courts Provision Read Post »

Scroll to Top