 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Johnson, CASE NO. 05 CO 67,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COLUMBIANA COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress field sobriety tests was properly denied because the record showed that his field sobriety tests were properly conducted, and, if there was any error in how the tests were conducted, an officer could still testify regarding the facts and circumstances he observed surrounding those tests as evidence of intoxication.
|
|||||
| State v. Jones, Court of Appeals No. L-05-1232,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where evidence connected defendant to an incident where a nine-year-old girl was grabbed, a gun was held to her head, and money was demanded from the church parishioners, and there was also testimony that defendant confessed, he was properly convicted of aggravated robbery and robbery, in violation of R.C. §§ 2911.01(A)(1) and 2911.02(A)(2).
|
|||||
| State v. Knostman, C.A. CASE NO. 2006CA10,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MIAMI COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for criminal trespass under R.C. § 2911.21(A)(1) was reversed because defendant was charged only with hunting on land of another without permission under R.C. § 1533.17(A), and criminal trespass was not a lesser included offense of hunting without permission as latter offense could be committed without also committing the former offense.
|
|||||
| State v. McCallister, Appellate Case No. 21637,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court could reasonably have concluded that defendant was wielding a firearm, as defined by R.C. § 2923.11(B), during the offenses charged for the firearm specifications, under R.C. § 2941.145(A). The victim testified that defendant was holding a silver semi-automatic gun and when he put the gun to her head, she could feel the hard metal.
|
|||||
| State v. Payton, C.A. CASE NO. 2006 CA 12,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MIAMI COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In prosecution for burglary under R.C. § 2911.12(A)(2), evidence that defendant believed that victim had sexual relationship with father of defendant's children and that defendant referred to this fact during her forced entry into victim's apartment allowed finding that defendant's true intent in going to victim's apartment was to confront victim.
|
|||||
| State v. Rose, C.A. CASE NO. 05CA0009,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's greater than minimum and consecutive sentences were reversed because, in imposing the sentences, the trial court made findings pursuant to R.C. § 2929.14(B)(2) and (E)(4), which the Supreme Court of Ohio had declared violated a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Scott, Court of Appeals No. WD-05-095,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WOOD COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's offer to sell a counterfeit substance, which he claimed was crack cocaine, to an undercover officer was fifth degree felony trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. § 2925.03(C)(4)(a); he could not be convicted of aggravated trafficking under § 2925.03(C)(4)(f) where a specific amount of the drug was not involved.
|
|||||
| State v. Willis, CASE NOS. 2006-L-057 and 2006-L-058,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant received effective assistance of counsel as the trial court properly exercised its discretion in imposing sentences within the statutory range under R.C. § 2929.14(A), having considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, R.C. § 2929.11, and, the seriousness of defendant's conduct and likelihood of recidivism, R.C. § 2929.12.
|
|||||
| Tidwell v. Quaglieri, Appellate Case No. 06-CA-0036,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the landlord claimed that he could not receive his mail as he had been out of the country, the trial court did not err in denying him an extension of time to object to the magistrate's decision as it appropriately chose to serve the landlord by ordinary mail, under Civ. R. 5(B), and it did not err in finding his motion to be untimely.
|
|||||
| Wright v. Portnoy, Court of Appeals No. WD-06-056,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WOOD COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly granted summary judgment to an attorney and his law firm in a legal malpractice action by a client, as the client had actually and necessarily litigated a claim of counsel's ineffectiveness in a postconviction relief proceeding, such that the claim was precluded from further litigation by collateral estoppel.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
