Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to the murders of two women and to two counts of abuse of a corpse. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated murder with death specifications for the deaths of two girls. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, primarily, that (1) the State’s closing remarks in the penalty phase were “improper and substantially prejudicial,” but the Court’s independent evaluation and approval of the capital sentence cured the errors in the penalty-phase proceedings; (2) the trial court did not violate Ohio R. Evid. 404(B) by allowing a witness to testify that when she was thirteen years old Defendant exposed himself to her and offered her five dollars to engage in oral sex; (3) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance; (4) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of attempted rape or robbery in connection the murder of one of the girls; and (5) the sentence was appropriate. View "State v. Kirkland" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant was competent to stand trial; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Appellant to wear leg restraints in the courtroom, and even assuming that the order was an abuse of discretion, the error was harmless; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of weapons and ammunition not used in the murders, but the error was harmless; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in introducing the former testimony of Dr. Delaney Smith, a psychiatrist, during the penalty phase, as defense counsel had a prior opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Smith; and (5) the trial court’s sentencing opinion was adequate. View "State v. Neyland" on Justia Law

While on parole from a prior conviction of murder, Appellant committed murder. After a trial in 1984, a three-judge panel found Appellant guilty of aggravated murder with a prior-conviction specification and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the death sentence, determining that the panel had improperly weighed a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance against the mitigating factors. On remand, the same three-judge panel that had originally sentenced Defendant conducted the resentencing hearing and again sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted habeas relief and required that Defendant be resentenced on the ground that the panel on resentencing should have allowed Defendant to introduce mitigating evidence in addition to the mitigating evidence presented at his 1984 trial. By the time of the subsequent resentencing, none of the original panel members were on the bench. Accordingly, the trial court convened a three-panel consisting of three new members. The new panel again sentenced Defendant to death. Defendant appealed, raising five propositions of law challenging his death sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, holding that all five propositions of law lacked merit. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with aggravated murder, and his case was assigned to the docket of Common Plea Court Judge Thomas Nurre. A visiting judge, Judge Donald Schott, was assigned to preside over the trial. The jury found Appellant guilty, and the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of life imprisonment, with the possibility of parole after twenty years. The judgment entry was signed by Judge Nurre on behalf of Judge Schott. Appellant filed an original action in the court of appeals requesting writs of mandamus and prohibition and seeking to declare the entry of conviction void because it was not signed by the judge who presided over the trial. The court of appeals dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis that Appellant’s sentencing entry did not violate Ohio R. Crim. P. 32(C) because Judge Nurre’s signing the entry was proper, and the entry satisfied the requirements of Rule 32(C). View "State ex rel. Harris v. Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with, inter alia, operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OVI). Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the motion lacked sufficient particularity on the issue of alleged improper administration of field sobriety tests. At the pretrial conference, Defendant pled no contest. The trial court subsequently found Defendant guilty of OVI. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, finding the motion deficient because more factual detail was needed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a highly detailed pleading of the facts and law is not required to satisfy the notice requirements of State v. Shindler and to trigger the right to a hearing on a motion to suppress. View "State v. Codeluppi" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of four felonies, with forfeiture specifications, for running a marijuana-distribution operation out of a building he and his brothers owned on Scranton Road. Common Pleas Court Judge Nancy McDonnell issued a sentencing entry listing the property at Scranton Road as property to be forfeited. On October 11, 2011, Appellant appealed the sentencing order. On January 13, 2012, Judge McDonnell issued a journal entry reiterating Appellant’s sentence and ordering transfer of the property. On October 23, 2012, Appellant sought a writ of prohibition to vacate Judge McDonnell’s January 13, 2012 order, arguing that Judge McDonnell lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s petition, concluding that Ohio Rev. Code 2981.04 vested Judge McDonnell with jurisdiction to conduct forfeiture proceedings even after the notice of appeal was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Judge McDonnell did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction and that any errors in the proceedings should be addressed on appeal. View "State ex rel. West v. McDonnell" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of rape he committed in 1983. In 2009, while out of prison on parole, Appellant committed two theft offenses at a gas station. Appellant subsequently pled guilty to two misdemeanor offenses of petty theft, and the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“OAPA”) found Appellant had violated the conditions of his parole. In 2011, Appellant filed an administrative grievance with the OAPA, contending that the 2009 report recommending revocation of his parole falsely stated that Appellant used a knife and committed rape during the offenses. The OAPA rejected the complaint. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asking the court of appeals to compel with OAPA to expunge the false statement from the violation report and conduct a new parole hearing. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the statement at issue in the violation report was referring to the 1983 rape, not the 2009 incident, the statement in the report was factually accurate and Appellant’s rights were not violated. View "Scarberry v. Turner" on Justia Law

William Glick filed a class action suit against Raymond Wohl, in his official capacity of the clerk of the municipal court, among other defendants, seeking declaratory and equitable relief related to Glick's municipal court sentences he alleged to be void for imposing unlawfully excessive court costs. The common pleas court determined that Glick’s class action against Wohl was viable, declared that multiple costs assessed against Glick as part of his sentence were unlawful, and held that Glick and other class members who had been assessed unlawful costs were owed a refund. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the class action was not viable, and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Wohl. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the relief requested by Glick in his class action was in substance a request to vacate a portion of a judgment of the municipal court; and (2) because a court of common pleas has no power to vacate an order rendered by a municipal court, summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Wohl. Remanded. View "Lingo v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the aggravated murder of Nichole McCorkle and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence of death, holding, among other things, that (1) the trial court did not err in admitting the autopsy report on McCorkle and by allowing a medical examiner, who did not conduct the autopsy, to testify about the autopsy results because an autopsy report that is neither prepared for the primary purpose of accusing a targeted individual nor prepared for the primary purpose of providing evidence in a criminal trial is nontestimonial and its admission into evidence at trial as a business record does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; (2) trial counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance; and (3) the trial court did not err by failing to appoint a neurologist to develop mitigation. View "State v. Maxwell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of a number of offenses, including two counts of aggravated murder with capital specifications. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed several post-trial motions, including motions for resentencing and a new trial, to no avail. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of procedendo to order the judge of the county court of common pleas to resentence him and to issue a final, appealable sentencing order in his criminal case. The court of appeals dismissed the motion on the basis of res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of procedendo because he raised these same issues before and had an adequate remedy by way of appeal in previous cases. View "State ex rel. Williams v. Hunter" on Justia Law