Ohio

Case Update

Today’s menu features Virginia v. Gray, a notable US Supreme Court decision on search and seizure, which I’ll discuss in more detail tomorrow.  Closer to home, their Ohio counterparts handed down Columbus v. Kim, upholding that city’s noise ordinance against a claim of unconstitutionality, concluding that whatever one’s standards of “unreasonably loud” was, it was met by a dog barking for an hour and a half so loudly that it could be heard over a running lawnmower.  The court also handed down another decision in a speedy trial case, with a result that’s sure to astonish you.  Yep.  Shocking, I tell you.  Shocking.  We’ll talk about that on Wednesday, along with another case that came down a few weeks back.

On to the courts of appeals…

Civil.  1st District reverses judgment adopting magistrate’s decision because decision was never served on opposing attorney… 6th District strikes down Ohio statute prohibiting municipalities from placing residency restrictions on employees; 9th District had previously come to same conclusion… 8th District reverses $2 million award for plaintiffs in med mal action, good discussion of loss of life expectancy and “loss of chance” theory… 9th District affirms grant of summary judgment to insurance company, holds it had no duty to defend lawsuit against insured barowners who sold liquor to minor, says laches requires prejudice, not just delay…

Criminal.  1st District says that misstatement as to maximum sentence at time of plea not error because no prejudice, where defendant receives sentence within statutory range… Where defendant and state sign plea agreement recommending “a one year sentence with judicial release after 3 months,” judge not bound to give judicial release, says 10th District, defendant not entitled to vacate plea… Where police come to defendant’s house, ask him to come their car, and question him regarding allegations of sex abuse of his daughter, defendant not in custody for purposes of Miranda, 12th District holds… Defendant files motion to dismiss escape charge because he wasn’t placed on PRC, court denies it, defendant pleads no contest and appeals; 9th District says issue not preserved for review, since motion to dismiss on factual basis not appropriate in criminal cases…

Bullshit non-traffic stop of the week.  Police stop defendant for “suspicion of jaywalking,” question him, 1st District says it’s not a custodial interrogation, reverses grant of motion to suppress.  Opinion refers to several other jaywalking cases, also one where defendant was stopped for “suspicion of excessive window tinting.”  No, I’m not making that up…

Full post as published by The Briefcase on April 28, 2008 (boomark / email).