 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Eads, No. 87636,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly instructed the jury regarding the use of force for rape and the instruction comported with the definition of force in R.C. § 2901.01(A). Defendant's imposing size and age difference (the victims were under the age of 13), along with his position as an older family friend to all three victims supported the instruction given.
|
|||||
| State v. Edmond, Case No. 06 CA 25,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LICKING COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying a postconviction petition as defendant filed the petition more than six years after his trafficking conviction. He completely failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of R.C. § 2953.23(A)(1) to show why his untimely postconviction petition should have been recognized.
|
|||||
| State v. Harris, No. 87915,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The sufficiency of the evidence supported defendant's convictions for possession and trafficking of drugs, in violation of R.C. §§ 2925.11(A) and 2925.03(A)(1), as he was observed by police during a buy-bust operation exchanging crack cocaine for cash with a police informant.
|
|||||
| State v. Heath, No. 86724,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in sentencing defendant, who hired someone to kill her husband, to a community control sanction as the statutory presumption under R.C. § 2929.13(D) in favor of a prison term was not overcome. The trial court's findings and reasons for imposing community control sanctions under R.C. § 2929.12(C) were not supported by the evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Oko, No. 87539,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err by failing to set forth its findings under R.C. § 2929.11. Sentencing defendant to more than three years was not inconsistent with the three years he initially received as because defendant was convicted of five counts versus the one count that he originally pled to, and he also committed perjury on the stand.
|
|||||
| State v. Peterson, No. 87909,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no indication that the attenuated reference to defendant's post-Miranda silence influenced the decision of the trial court. The cross-examination of defendant was in response to the questions posed by defense counsel on direct examination. But for the testimony, the outcome of the trial would not have been otherwise.
|
|||||
| State v. Scott, No. 87942,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial, under R.C. § 2945.71, because only 40 days out of 90 had elapsed at the time of trial. Defendant had requested continuances of 10 pretrial dates and six trial dates, which the trial court granted.
|
|||||
| State v. Towns, No. 88059,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a defendant was placed on electronically monitored house arrest as a pretrial condition of her bond rather than as a sentencing condition, it did not constitute detention for which defendant was entitled to receive jail-time credit.
|
|||||
| State v. Z.J., No. 87912,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in ordering defendant's record sealed as the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court, under R.C. § 2945.401, over defendant's court-ordered commitment was not a pending "criminal proceeding" for the purpose of R.C. § 2953.52(B)(2)(b). When she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, the criminal proceedings terminated.
|
|||||
| Svette v. Caplinger, Case No. 06CA2910,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ROSS COUNTY, February 8, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a motorist's erratic operation of his vehicle did not constitute a nuisance pursuant to former R.C. § 2744.02(B)(3), the exception to immunity for a county, arising from a vehicle collision between the motorist and a driver wherein the county and its employees had failed to stop the motorist, was inapplicable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
