 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Foks, Court of Appeals No. L-05-1344,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was clear and convincing evidence to support the determination that defendant was a sexual predator, under R.C. § 2950.09(B). Although the psychological experts differed as to whether defendant was likely to reoffend, it was the trial court's prerogative to determine the weight to be afforded the evidence before it.
|
|||||
| State v. Gardner, C.A. CASE NO. 21357,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the record did not demonstrate that the jury unanimously agreed upon the identity of the underlying offense of aggravated burglary, under R.C. § 2911.11(A)(2), that defendant had a purpose to commit, a manifest injustice occurred and plain error existed. The trial court did not specify any particular underlying criminal offense.
|
|||||
| State v. Harris, Court of Appeals No. H-06-019,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, HURON COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's sentence to a non-minimum term of imprisonment was reversed and vacated pursuant to Foster, but the resentencing had not yet occurred, defendant's claim on appeal that the Foster sentencing severance and resentencing remedy violated due process and ex post facto principles was premature.
|
|||||
| State v. Holland, Appellate Case No. 21446,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As there was no evidence at defendant's suppression hearing that he had a diminished mental capacity, either generally or when he gave his statements to police, a trial court properly concluded that the statements were given voluntarily, such that suppression thereof was denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Kerby, Appellate Case No. 03-CA-55,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred when it overruled defendant's motion to suppress his confession because the officers' implication that defendant, a 17-year-old, could face the death penalty for his involvement with the shooting and attempted robbery was misrepresentation that undermined his ability to voluntarily waive his privilege against self-incrimination.
|
|||||
| State v. Larger, Court of Appeals No. WM-06-004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WILLIAMS COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a deputy commented on defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent after being placed in custody and given Miranda warnings, such comment was isolated, a curative instruction was given, no inference of guilt from defendant's silence was stressed to the jury, and there was other evidence of guilt, such that it was harmless error.
|
|||||
| State v. Lopez, Court of Appeals No. OT-05-059,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, OTTAWA COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a trial court did not read the statutory advisement of R.C. § 2943.031(A) verbatim, where the plea colloquy contained an advisement that substantially complied, such that defendant understood the implication of his plea with respect to immigration consequences and the rights that he was waiving, there was no error.
|
|||||
| State v. Lucas, C.A. CASE NO. 2006 CA 1,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a court-appointed psychologist indicated that a juvenile could have profited from treatment in the juvenile system, a juvenile court's relinquishment of jurisdiction to have the juvenile tried as an adult was not error, as the factors under R.C. § 2152.12(D) and (E) were in favor of relinquishment.
|
|||||
| State v. Myles, Appellate Case No. 21469,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consecutive sentence was reversed because Ohio Supreme Court had declared that R.C. § 2929.14(E)(4), which authorized imposition of consecutive sentences if certain findings were made, was unconstitutional and that sentences imposed pursuant to this section had to be reversed. It was for trial court, not an appellate court, to resentence defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
