The Sixth District affirmed a speeding conviction where the pro se defendant failed to serve formal discovery on the prosecutor, holding that public records requests to the sheriff’s office do not satisfy Crim.R. 16 discovery obligations, even when a judge ordered the State to comply.
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 reversed in part a discovery order compelling disclosure of oil and gas drilling strategies, finding that the trial court failed to consider supplemental trade secret evidence and remanding for a protective order.
The Ninth District affirmed most aspects of a divorce decree but reversed the trial court’s property-division offset, finding that the court improperly double-counted certain expenses and failed to credit the husband for overpayments made under the temporary orders.
The Ninth District affirmed the denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to set aside a five-year domestic violence civil protection order, finding that the respondent’s untimely motion and failure to update his address with the court defeated his claim of lack of notice.
The Ninth District affirmed a small claims judgment for a restoration company, holding that the defendant waived her Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) objection by failing to request findings of fact from the magistrate and that the contractual one-year limitation provision was properly rejected.
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 Second District reversed the revival of a dormant consent judgment, holding that Autovest failed to establish the current balance owed and that the trial court erred by reviving the judgment without an evidentiary hearing despite disputed payment amounts.