The Ninth District partially reversed a criminal trespass conviction, holding that a represented defendant’s pro se motions did not toll the statutory speedy trial clock and remanding for a determination of whether the State violated the 45-day time limit.
The Ninth District affirmed a domestic violence conviction, holding that the trial court’s failure to advise the defendant of his right to a jury trial and right to remain silent at arraignment was not prejudicial where the defendant later knowingly waived a jury trial through written motion.
The Ninth District affirmed the conviction of a commercial driver for running a red light, holding that the necessity defense was available but that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that stopping would have created a greater danger.
The Ninth District reversed the suppression of OVI evidence, holding that a state trooper’s observations of slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol during a valid traffic stop gave rise to reasonable suspicion to expand the stop into an OVI investigation.
The Ninth District reversed a contempt finding, holding that community control violations in misdemeanor cases cannot be prosecuted as criminal contempt under R.C. 2929.25 and that the trial court lacked authority after community control expired.
The Ninth District reversed a zoning conviction because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry before accepting the defendant’s waiver of counsel, holding that the brief colloquy was insufficient given the complexity of the zoning regulatory scheme.
The Ninth District upheld an Alford plea but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make any findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences.
The Ninth District dismissed the State’s appeal of a trial court’s refusal to compel witness testimony, holding that R.C. 2945.44 requires full transactional immunity and that the State’s offer excluding murder was insufficient to compel testimony over a Fifth Amendment invocation.
The Ninth District affirmed a murder conviction, holding that the defendant forfeited jury instruction challenges by failing to object and that Ohio’s self-defense presumption under R.C. 2901.05(B)(2) was unavailable because the victim had a right to be in the residence.