 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Lynch, No. 06AP-128,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in overruling the motion to suppress. No immunity was sought or granted and defendant was not compelled to be a witness against himself in the criminal proceedings. Defendant entered into a contract whereby he agreed that the prosecution could develop information gained from his statement made under the agreement.
|
|||||
| State v. McCree, No. 87951,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported defendant's convictions for aggravated murder and having a weapon while under disability, in violation of R.C. §§ 2903.01 and 2923.13, where witnesses observed him engage in a verbal altercation with the victim, whom he thereafter approached with a gun and fired multiple shots at; prior calculation and design was shown.
|
|||||
| State v. McGee, Case No. 05CA60,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: None of the prosecutor's comments amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The comment during voir dire called to the jurors' attention the witness's weakness as a State's witness due to his extensive criminal record, his plea deal, and his involvement in the crimes. The comments were not improper as they were based on what the evidence showed.
|
|||||
| State v. Miller, Case No. 06CA11,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court incorrectly imposed a five-year post-release control sanction, rather than the three-year period of post-release control, under R.C. § 2967.28. The trial court properly notified him at the sentencing hearing about the terms and conditions of post-release control and it was required to incorporate that notice into its journal entry.
|
|||||
| State v. Mills, Case No. 2005CA0096,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, RICHLAND COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: If defendant's stop for a window tint violation was pretext, suppression was not required, and a failure to address suppression of a pat-down was not fatal as defendant was under arrest and the search was done after detecting marijuana. The amount and content of drugs seized from defendant supported convictions under R.C. §§ 2925.11 and 2925.03(A).
|
|||||
| State v. Myers, No. 87973,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in convicting defendant of drug possession, as the prosecution thereof was barred by the limitations period of R.C. § 2901.13(A)(1) because the State did not exhibit reasonable diligence in attempting to serve defendant where no additional efforts were made after a failed certified mail attempt.
|
|||||
| State v. Robinson, No. 87764,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant. Since the detective directly witnessed the transaction, the informant's identity was not essential to establishing any element of the charges against defendant and would not have aided defendant in the preparation of his defense.
|
|||||
| State v. Scott, Case No. 06 CA 1,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, MORGAN COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant was more than just an innocent or acquiescing bystander, but instead participated as an aider and abettor of the trafficking activities at her residence, under R.C. § 2923.03(A)(2). The house was filled with drugs, money, and drug paraphernalia, most of which was found in defendant's bedroom.
|
|||||
| State v. Seigers, No. 87722,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court had jurisdiction to hold a sexual offender classification hearing for defendant as his hearing was properly held within one year of his release from prison pursuant to R.C. § 2950.09(C)(2)(a). Defendant was a sex offender who was convicted and sentenced prior to January 1, 1997, and was still in prison on or after January 1, 1997.
|
|||||
| State v. Smith, No. 87735,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officers had reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in criminal activity, thus making their stop of defendant permissible under U.S. Const. amend. IV, as defendant's car was parked in the middle of the street, woman was screaming to officers that car belonged to her, and defendant fled from the car as officers approached the car.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
