{"count":12097,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xMC44MzI1OTEmcz0xMDY3MDY5NSZ0PW8mZD0yMDI2LTA5LTI3JnA9Mg%3D%3D&q=ATTENDANCE+AND+COMPULSORY+PROCESS+WITNESSES&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10619952/state-v-saltis/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Saltis","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 2286"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10619952,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24CA012155","docket_id":70671161,"judge":"Flagg Lanzinger","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-30T14:13:00.094854Z","date_created":"2025-06-30T14:13:00.008874Z","score":{"bm25":22.108116}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 2286","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8112,"cites":[311012,323066,562667,701770,2705865,4196173,4270464,6758010,6767299,9423455,9425049,9433984],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2025/2025-Ohio-2286.pdf","id":11086540,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/30/state_v._saltis.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:12:04.552982Z","date_created":"2025-06-30T14:13:00.027665Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5211d68e1ee6c11025cc5a07bdf51d2c61971a2a","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Saltis, 2025-Ohio-2286.]\n\n\nSTATE OF OHIO                      )                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                                   )ss:                  NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT\nCOUNTY OF LORAIN                   )\n\nSTATE OF OHIO                                            C.A. No.        24CA012155\n\n        Appellee\n\n        v.                                               APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT\n                                                         ENTERED IN THE\nGE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11086540],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Fifth Amendment, defense witness, compulsory process, Sixth Amendment, mistrial, abuse of discretion, perjury"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10374517/state-v-phillips/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Phillips","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 1235"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":10374517,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23AP-147","docket_id":69859531,"judge":"Boggs","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-08T18:12:28.910104Z","date_created":"2025-04-08T18:12:27.997663Z","score":{"bm25":18.625216}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 1235","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107481,111206,111687,2691075,2830396,3684812,3728986,4103190,4294009,4524981,6757257,6759869,6772787,7799764],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2025/2025-Ohio-1235.pdf","id":10841105,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/08/state_v._phillips.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-03T21:23:30.401372Z","date_created":"2025-04-08T18:12:28.012388Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d5d84644972467678237a3c6612e0c8309d0f485","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Phillips, 2025-Ohio-1235.]\n\n\n                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nState of Ohio,                                       :\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                 :\n                                                                       No. 23AP-147\nv.                                                   :              (C.P.C. No. 19CR-5237)\n\nConrad V. Phillips, V,                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10841105],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The trial court erred by accepting appellant's guilty plea without strictly complying with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). The trial court did not inform appellant that, by pleading guilty, he was giving up the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses to testify on his behalf. The trial court's question whether appellant understood he was waiving his right to present any defenses did not reasonably inform appellant that he had the right to utilize the court's subpoena power to compel witnesses to appear and testify on his behalf. Judgment reversed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4512659/village-of-mantua-v-sobczak/","attorney":"","caseName":"Village of Mantua v. Sobczak","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2018 Ohio 2578"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4512659,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-06-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2017-P-0067 & 2017-P-0079","docket_id":7317426,"judge":"Cannon","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:06:01.406593Z","date_created":"2018-06-29T14:48:25.005621Z","score":{"bm25":16.723335}},"neutralCite":"2018 Ohio 2578","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8065,"cites":[107481,110138,110797],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2018/2018-Ohio-2578.pdf","id":4289912,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/06/29/village_of_mantua_v._sobczak.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:09:22.970393Z","date_created":"2018-06-29T14:48:25.041252Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f38503bbd9e0d8291998fec644cb84aa8fe7a707","snippet":"[Cite as Village of Mantua v. Sobczak, 2018-Ohio-2578.]\n\n\n                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                                      PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\n VILLAGE OF MANTUA,                                       :   OPINION\n\n                  Plaintiff-Appellee,                     :\n                                                              CASE NOS. 2017-P-0067\n         - vs -                             ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4289912],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"CRIMINAL - right to compulsory process due process witness necessary to an adequate defense ordinance not in conflict with statute car horn sound making device or instrument ejusdem generis statutory interpretation blanket sentence sentencing package."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6241318/state-v-pattson/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Pattson","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2022 Ohio 150"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":6241318,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-01-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"29028 & 29029","docket_id":62616753,"judge":"Welbaum","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:46:11.815171Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T17:09:17.215502Z","score":{"bm25":15.443048}},"neutralCite":"2022 Ohio 150","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2690568,2691075,2692710,2692811,2692902,2694162,2706064,3009080,4323318,4524981,4531677,4564836,4673218,4690846,4691767],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2022/2022-Ohio-150.pdf","id":6108344,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/01/21/state_v._pattson.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:31:16.326024Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T17:09:17.229201Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e9cf442988e4fb50e04b515f4c8745ff979cd83c","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Pattson, 2022-Ohio-150.]\n\n\n\n\n                                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                                   SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                       MONTGOMERY COUNTY\n\n STATE OF OHIO                                     :\n                                                   :\n          Plaintiff-Appellee                       :   Appellate Case Nos. 29028 and 29029\n                                                   :\n v.                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6108344],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Appellant's claim that his guilty pleas in two cases were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered lacks merit because the trial court's plea colloquy did not fail to inform appellant of his constitutional right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses and did not fail to properly notify him of the maximum possible prison sentence for his offenses. Appellant's claim that his aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and aggravated menacing offenses should have merged as allied offenses lacks merit because those offenses were either committed by separate conduct, committed against separate victims, and/or resulted in a separate, identifiable harm. Judgments affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4904270/state-v-jones/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Jones","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2021 Ohio 2621"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":4904270,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-07-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E-19-065","docket_id":60098323,"judge":"Pietrykowski","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:55:00.202894Z","date_created":"2021-07-30T18:14:43.845254Z","score":{"bm25":14.810482}},"neutralCite":"2021 Ohio 2621","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8122,"cites":[3715220,3716756,3765820,3766448,3767117,4160478,4307323,4325401,4391250,4438159,4519639,4567608,6699769,6756850,6758391,6761859,6762368,6763551,6764670,6773603,6775376,6777381,6786165,6786816,6790452,9422279,9422887,9423455,9431168,9801535,9801722,9802911,9805745,9875097],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2021/2021-Ohio-2621.pdf","id":4708049,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/07/30/state_v._jones.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T12:05:37.055537Z","date_created":"2021-07-30T18:14:43.870073Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7d69bb89c9b88ac8b99130d3960227d8ebec7f5e","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio-2621.]\n\n\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                       ERIE COUNTY\n\n\nState of Ohio                                    Court of Appeals No. E-19-065\n\n        Appellee                                 Trial Court No. 2017 CR 0311\n\nv.\n\nDashay Jones                                     DECISION AND JUDGMENT\n\n        Appellant                              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4708049],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Traffic stop and continued detention is not unconstitutional where the officer had probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, and the 18 minutes before the K9 unit alerted to the presence of drugs was within a reasonable amount of time to complete the traffic warning. Appellant's right to compulsory process is not violated where the witnesses sought to testify would violate Evid.R. 608(B). Jury instruction consciousness of guilt insufficiency manifest weight Evid.R. 404(B) other acts evidence harmless error."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/414083/lakewood-ohio-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnesses-inc-v-city-of/","attorney":"Sheldon Berns (argued), Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant., William E. Blackie, Lakewood, Ohio, Henry B. Fischer (argued), Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.","caseName":"Lakewood, Ohio Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. City of Lakewood, Ohio","caseNameFull":"LAKEWOOD, OHIO CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LAKEWOOD, OHIO, Defendant-Appellee","citation":["699 F.2d 303","1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30834"],"citeCount":98,"cluster_id":414083,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","court_citation_string":"6th Cir.","court_id":"ca6","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1983-02-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"82-3004","docket_id":231843,"judge":"Martin, Brown, Speigel","lexisCite":"1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30834","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T21:07:19.458733Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T23:02:06.950063Z","score":{"bm25":14.481491}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100934,103355,106251,106658,106660,108530,109004,109505,109573,109670,110188,110461,110507,110532,110647],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/699/699.F2d.303.82-3004.html","id":414083,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:26:12.259258Z","date_created":"2011-08-23T09:27:34Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d2fd2ad91b8e5a79ea5efb55ec26176cded21273","snippet":"\n\n\n  BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  The principal question presented in this appeal is whether a municipal zoning ordinance, which prohibits the construction of church buildings in virtually all residential districts in the city, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.\n  \n   1\n  \n  Although many state courts hav","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[414083],"source":"RU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2442708/new-process-steel-corp-v-steel-corp-of-texas/","attorney":"Richie & Greenberg and Susan D. Stein-fink, Houston, for appellants., Bracewell & Patterson, William Key Wilde, Green, Sims, Vanof & Lee, Tom Sims, Houston, for appellees.","caseName":"New Process Steel Corp. v. Steel Corp. of Texas","caseNameFull":"NEW PROCESS STEEL CORP., E. R. Fant, Inc. and S & S Alloys, Inc., Appellants, v. STEEL CORP. OF TEXAS, Appellees","citation":["638 S.W.2d 522","1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 4369"],"citeCount":24,"cluster_id":2442708,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp1","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1982-05-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"01-82-0002-CV","docket_id":2314985,"judge":"Price, Warren, Dug-Gan","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:17:35.139782Z","date_created":"2015-10-16T16:10:13.314310Z","score":{"bm25":14.464401}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1681305,1739656,1773570,1796304,2390644,2435657,2437630,2447208,2448953],"download_url":null,"id":2442708,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:17:35.128310Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:36:45.981589Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9530bb329656545d015fa62691287cec5e23c0ac","snippet":"\n638 S.W.2d 522 (1982)\nNEW PROCESS STEEL CORP., E. R. Fant, Inc. and S & S Alloys, Inc., Appellants,\nv.\nSTEEL CORP. OF TEXAS, Appellees.\nNo. 01-82-0002-CV.\nCourt of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).\nMay 6, 1982.\n*523 Richie & Greenberg and Susan D. Steinfink, Houston, for appellants.\nBracewell & Patterson, ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2442708],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4895869/state-v-ts/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. T.S.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2021 Ohio 2203"],"citeCount":10,"cluster_id":4895869,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-06-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20AP-159","docket_id":60023311,"judge":"Mentel","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:52:53.038598Z","date_created":"2021-06-29T20:15:16.975581Z","score":{"bm25":14.22829}},"neutralCite":"2021 Ohio 2203","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2690801,2707129,3698229,3713490,3725669,3730384,3731890,3748323,3751648,3772783,3783875,3784721,4118390,6758010,6762204,6762353,6762694,6771758,6772861,6780002,9423233,11152828],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2021/2021-Ohio-2203.pdf","id":4699648,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/06/29/state_v._t.s..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T09:16:09.973126Z","date_created":"2021-06-29T20:15:16.992207Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ca556d32f8244bc1b623aa085ec55e54cd097270","snippet":"[Cite as State v. T.S., 2021-Ohio-2203.]\n\n                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nState of Ohio,                                   :\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellee,             :\n                                                                      No. 20AP-159\nv.                                               :                 (C.P.C. No. 09CR-4205)\n\n[T.S.],                                          :     ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4699648],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The trial court did not err when overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial under Crim.R.33. based on the purported recantation of the minor victim's trial testimony of sexual abuse. Even if appellant had rights of confrontation and compulsory process under the United States and Ohio Constitutions that applied during the hearing as he asserts, he did not have the right to call the victim as a witness for the sole purpose of having her invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at the hearing, as her attorney informed the trial court that she would do. On the merits of the motion for a new trial, there was no strong probability of a new trial having a different result from the original trial. There was strong evidence of guilt independent of the victim's testimony, as the appellant had confessed the conduct to investigators and the admissibility of his statements was affirmed on the direct appeal."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4493211/state-v-jackson/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Jackson","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2018 Ohio 1633"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4493211,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"105919","docket_id":6377131,"judge":"Keough","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:00:17.083895Z","date_created":"2018-04-26T20:44:09.603484Z","score":{"bm25":14.16763}},"neutralCite":"2018 Ohio 1633","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8108,"cites":[107481,110797,1991658],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2018/2018-Ohio-1633.pdf","id":4270464,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/04/26/state_v._jackson.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:55:52.285863Z","date_created":"2018-04-26T20:44:09.611947Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d47097cda8a59095c6a3d433e54b839a45c638bb","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Jackson, 2018-Ohio-1633.]\n\n\n                 Court of Appeals of Ohio\n                                   EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                      COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\n\n                                  JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION\n                                          No. 105919\n\n\n\n                                              STATE OF OHIO\n\n                                                         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE\n\n                                      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4270464],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Plea agreement compulsory process material favorable. Where the defendant's codefendants entered into plea agreements that improperly precluded them from testifying for the defense, defendant's conviction was affirmed and the violation of defendant's right to compulsory process held to be harmless where the defendant did not make the required showing that the codefendants' testimony would have been material and favorable to his defense."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4413874/state-v-moore/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Moore","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2017 Ohio 7024"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":4413874,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-07-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2015-T-0072","docket_id":6128797,"judge":"Cannon","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:38:25.116203Z","date_created":"2017-07-31T17:11:58.020224Z","score":{"bm25":13.522464}},"neutralCite":"2017 Ohio 7024","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8065,"cites":[2688328,2707610,3185433,3766665],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2017/2017-Ohio-7024.pdf","id":4191127,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/07/31/state_v._moore.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:00:43.159169Z","date_created":"2017-07-31T17:11:58.027483Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"eb018860ca782c5cea42d1f9d6e4a3b028773714","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Moore, 2017-Ohio-7024.]\n\n\n                                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                               ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                                    TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\nSTATE OF OHIO,                                 :      OPINION\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellee,           :\n                                                      CASE NO. 2015-T-0072\n        - vs -                                 :\n\nMAURICE MOORE,                         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4191127],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"CRIMINAL - Crim.R. 44(C) waiver of right to counsel compulsory process indigent defendant funds for expert witness motion to suppress suppression hearing Crim.R. 47 specific legal and factual basis consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14 required findings failure to make findings during sentencing hearing contrary to law trial court may not order a sentence to be served consecutively with a future sentence that has not yet been imposed defendant's silence at sentencing lack of remorse R.C. 2929.12(E)(5) waiver of fines court costs."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10298276/state-of-tennessee-v-jeremy-james-dalton/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Jeremy James Dalton","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10298276,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2023-01588-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":69486532,"judge":"Judge Timothy L. Easter","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-12-20T16:16:44.752790Z","date_created":"2024-12-20T16:16:44.667305Z","score":{"bm25":13.19262}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8283,"cites":[105912,106862,107252,109309,109643,110138,111614,111992,134724,147529,1056916,1082966,1354429,1449376,1506546,1516950,1518439,1525276,2276003,2413820,2431765,2438211],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/E-SIGNED-M2023-1588-CCA-DALTON.pdf","id":10764864,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/12/20/state_of_tennessee_v._jeremy_james_dalton.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:33:35.560839Z","date_created":"2024-12-20T16:16:44.685682Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bdda207afb270ddabee4198987126942aabcaec6","snippet":"                                                                                                     12/20/2024\n           IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                            AT NASHVILLE\n                           Assigned on Briefs December 10, 2024\n\n             STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEREMY JAMES DALTON\n\n                  Appeal from the Criminal Court for Fentress County\n                       No. 19-85 Zachary R. Walden, Judge1\n                       __________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10764864],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder and sentenced to forty years in incarceration after stabbing his neighbor, the victim, several times. Defendant represented himself at trial and now represents himself on appeal. He raises a variety of issues including: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting the preliminary hearing testimony of the victim; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress; (4) whether the trial court should have granted a continuance; (5) whether the trial court erred in excluding a statement; (6) whether the trial court improperly allowed a witness to use a \"script\"; (7) whether the State violated Brady, Napue, or Giglio; (8) whether the State improperly used Defendant's prior convictions for impeachment; (9) whether Defendant was denied access to court; (10) whether the trial court properly limited Defendant's use of an intake video; (11) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury; (12) whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; (13) whether Defendant was denied compulsory process; (14) whether the trial court should have recused itself; (15) whether the appellate record was transmitted in error; (16) whether the sentence is excessive; and (17) whether cumulative error requires reversal of the conviction. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10384255/state-v-howard/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Howard","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 1462"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10384255,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"114410","docket_id":69936324,"judge":"Keough","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-24T15:15:44.624927Z","date_created":"2025-04-24T15:15:44.567376Z","score":{"bm25":12.711067}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 1462","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8108,"cites":[4531677],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2025/2025-Ohio-1462.pdf","id":10850843,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/24/state_v._howard.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:12:05.419120Z","date_created":"2025-04-24T15:15:44.582036Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"31031411324dfa1ad45cf74f137d113599d8d29f","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Howard, 2025-Ohio-1462.]\n\n                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\nSTATE OF OHIO,                                     :\n\n                Plaintiff-Appellee,                :\n                                                            No. 114410\n                v.                                 :\n\nDEOANTE HOWARD,                                    :\n\n       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10850843],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Conceded error; plea; self-incrimination. - Defendant did not enter a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea because the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it failed to advise him that by pleading guilty he would waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The State conceded the error."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4640744/state-v-phillips/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Phillips","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2019 Ohio 2930"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4640744,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-07-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"18AP-619","docket_id":15935984,"judge":"Dorrian","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:43:11.901866Z","date_created":"2019-07-18T17:49:17.800575Z","score":{"bm25":12.54797}},"neutralCite":"2019 Ohio 2930","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8081,"cites":[107359,108110,109309,111095,111371,111625,111750,112566,118328],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2019/2019-Ohio-2930.pdf","id":4417997,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/07/18/state_v._phillips.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:38:23.150237Z","date_created":"2019-07-18T17:49:17.823405Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d9b9dbe0f87b01f7db78b85e8ff41d93912e9a86","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Phillips, 2019-Ohio-2930.]\n\n\n                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nState of Ohio,                                       :\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                 :\n                                                                      No. 18AP-619\nv.                                                   :              (C.P.C. No. 17CR-5223)\n\nEarnest L. Phillips,                     ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4417997],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Trial court did not err by revoking defendant's right to self-representation where the record demonstrated defendant engaged in a pattern of disruptive tactics that appear to have been intended to delay or derail the trial process. Trial court also did not err by holding second day of trial in defendant's absence despite defendant claiming to be too ill to attend court where the defendant had previously feigned a medical issue to delay prior trial date."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4582878/state-v-thomas/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Thomas","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2019 Ohio 132"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":4582878,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-01-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C-170400","docket_id":8512701,"judge":"Cunningham","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:25:52.747694Z","date_created":"2019-01-18T14:38:08.925566Z","score":{"bm25":12.390177}},"neutralCite":"2019 Ohio 132","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8073,"cites":[106037,107481,109191,109309,112898,118074,1467222,2691779,4112022,4210677,4282593],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2019/2019-Ohio-132.pdf","id":4360131,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/01/18/state_v._thomas.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:58:26.649443Z","date_created":"2019-01-18T14:38:08.952304Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b7ae5edd93472553ab068c6e3f05db6562f85c8f","snippet":"         [Cite as State v. Thomas, 2019-Ohio-132.]\n                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n             FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO\n                  HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\n\nSTATE OF OHIO,                                       :   APPEAL NO. C-170400\n                                                         TRIAL NO. B-1506725\n        Plaintiff-Appellee,                          :\n                                                             O P I N I O N.\n  vs.                             ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4360131],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – WAIVER OF COUNSEL – COMPETENCY – OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE – WITNESSES – SENTENCING – ALLIED OFFENSES – R.C. 2941.25: The trial court did not err by failing to sua sponte order a competency evaluation before allowing defendant to waive trial counsel, because defendant did not manifest any observable signs of incompetency during his proceedings such that a reasonable judge would experience genuine doubt his competency. Defendant's endorsement of fringe views did not mean that he could not cooperate with his attorney or understand the judicial proceedings against him. The trial court's admission of other-acts evidence during the testimony of a state's witness did not rise to the level of plain error where defendant elicited similar testimony on cross-examination, and the state presented overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. The trial court did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or his right to compulsory process when it failed to construe defendant's pro se motions requesting discovery as requests for assistance in subpoenaing the state's nontestifying informant, where the record demonstrated that defendant knew the identity of the informant and how to subpoena witness, and that he had been provided the assistance of a legal advisor. The trial court erred by sentencing defendant to separate, concurrent terms for allied offenses of similar import where the trial court had determined at sentencing that the offenses of possessing marijuana and trafficking in marijuana were allied offenses of similar import, and the state had elected to pursue the trafficking offense."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9546192/state-v-cawthorne/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Cawthorne","caseNameFull":"","citation":["245 N.E.3d 930","2024 Ohio 2258"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9546192,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-06-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"112795","docket_id":68852678,"judge":"Keough","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:21:51.924773Z","date_created":"2024-06-13T16:07:50.880208Z","score":{"bm25":11.900297}},"neutralCite":"2024 Ohio 2258","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8108,"cites":[2702156,2703212,3195810,3748404,3750685,3757014,4524981,4531677,6756111,6757257,6776621,6784327,6789745,6792761,6793329,9368072,9432696,11152901],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2024/2024-Ohio-2258.pdf","id":10012805,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/06/13/state_v._cawthorne.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T16:46:50.338808Z","date_created":"2024-06-13T16:07:50.897825Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"43912880e38d318af6fdf81f42c121a9c4de851f","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Cawthorne, 2024-Ohio-2258.]\n\n                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\nSTATE OF OHIO,                                   :\n\n                Plaintiff-Appellee,              :\n                                                                 No. 112795\n                v.                               :\n\nSTEAVEN CAWTHORNE,                               :\n\n    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10012805],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Aggravated murder plea firearm specification Crim.R. 11(C)(2) and (3) maximum fine harmless error plea colloquy prejudice. - Appellant's mid-trial change of plea upheld. Crim.R. 11(C)(3) only applies to aggravated murder with a death specification. Trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) in accepting appellant's guilty plea to the firearm specification attendant to the aggravated murder offense. Trial court's incorrect advisement regarding the maximum fine was harmless error because the court found appellant indigent and did not impose a fine. Trial court's run-on advisement of appellant's constitutional rights during the plea was not in error because the manner in which the court provided the statement was effective appellant was not prejudiced."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4688310/lonnie-lee-angel-jr-v-state-of-tennessee/","attorney":"","caseName":"Lonnie Lee Angel, Jr. v. State of Tennessee","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4688310,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-12-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2018-01551-CCA-R3-PC","docket_id":16603835,"judge":"Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:56:12.950194Z","date_created":"2019-12-18T21:13:45.110538Z","score":{"bm25":11.5209875}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8287,"cites":[111170,112807,1057579,1057707,1060512,1060938,1061016,1519651,1521972,1568514,1658562,1728598,1769614,1786677,2388301,2413820,2449323],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/lonnie_lee_angel_jr._cca_majority_opinion.pdf","id":4465563,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/12/18/lonnie_lee_angel_jr._v._state_of_tennessee.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:11:36.687393Z","date_created":"2019-12-18T21:13:45.119260Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4f0e86647d2dbff6514c1b53441c3a53ebf851bf","snippet":"                                                                                           12/18/2019\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                         AT KNOXVILLE\n                        Assigned on Briefs September 25, 2019\n\n            LONNIE LEE ANGEL, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE\n\n                  Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bledsoe County\n                     No. 2016-CR-2        Thomas W. Graham, Judge\n\n\n                             No. E2018-01551-CCA-R3","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4465563],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Petitioner, Lonnie Lee Angel, Jr., appeals the Bledsoe County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2011 conviction for second degree murder and his twenty-three-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that (1) he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and (2) the post-conviction court erred by prohibiting him from compelling the attendance of witnesses by subpoenas at the evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1441687/jehovahs-witnesses-in-state-of-wash-v-king-county-hosp/","attorney":"Kenneth A. MacDonald, Frederic C. Tausend, Seattle, Wash., W. Glen How, Q. C., Toronto, Canada, Daniel Brink, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs., John J. O’Connell, State Atty. Gen., James B. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, Wash., Robert E. Sehillberg, Snohomish County Pros. Atty., Donald E. Priest, Deputy Snohomish County Pros. Atty., Everett, Wash., Charles 0. Carroll, King County Pros. Atty., John M. Watson, James E. Kennedy, Deputy Pros. Attys. for King County, Seattle, Wash.,' Anderson & Hunter, Everett, Wash., Little & Jones, Charles T. Sharp, Clarkston, Wash., Williams, Lanza, Kastner & Gibbs, Holman, Marion, Perkins, Coie & Stone, Seattle, Wash., for defendants.","caseName":"Jehovah's Witnesses in State of Wash. v. King County Hosp.","caseNameFull":"JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN the STATE OF WASHINGTON Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. KING COUNTY HOSPITAL UNIT NO. 1 (HARBORVIEW) Et Al., Defendants","citation":["278 F. Supp. 488"],"citeCount":68,"cluster_id":1441687,"court":"District Court, W.D. Washington","court_citation_string":"W.D. Wash.","court_id":"wawd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1967-11-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. 6595","docket_id":99905,"judge":"Hamley, Lindberg, Béeks","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T03:54:16.434606Z","date_created":"2015-09-22T01:51:31.124639Z","score":{"bm25":11.323491}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9630920,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T21:35:57.767683Z","date_created":"2023-08-22T10:24:11.595486Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION ON THE MERITS\nLINDBERG, District Judge:\nThe principal plaintiffs herein are individual Jehovah’s Witnesses whose minor children, contrary to the expressed beliefs and directions of their parents, were given blood transfusions under court orders obtained pursuant to provisions of the Juvenile Court Law of the State of Washington, namely RCW 13.-04.010(12) and 13.04.095.1","type":"on-the-merits"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[96819,98003,101973,101991,103185,103359,103452,103481,103670,103696,103933,104029,104265,104787,105105,105504,105714,105903,105928,106012,106347,106365,106454,106837,107025,107033,107115,253755,1957721,2051472,2192017,2608300,3417680],"download_url":null,"id":1441687,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T08:27:52.411022Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:10:40.675781Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7b343a549a774db498a53e8cb83a1851400c135e","snippet":"\n278 F.Supp. 488 (1967)\nJEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN the STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., Plaintiffs,\nv.\nKING COUNTY HOSPITAL UNIT NO. 1 (HARBORVIEW) et al., Defendants.\nCiv. No. 6595.\nUnited States District Court W. D. Washington, N. D.\nJune 8, 1967.\nAddendum to Memorandum Decision of June 8, 1967\nOpinion on the Merits November 20, 1967.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[232,1937],"panel_names":["William Trulock Beeks","William James Lindberg"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9630919,9630920,1441687],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4713838/house-committees-authority-to-investigate-for-impeachment/","attorney":"","caseName":"House Committees' Authority to Investigate for Impeachment","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4713838,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-01-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":16730320,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:08.078825Z","date_created":"2020-01-20T19:01:11.959112Z","score":{"bm25":11.0104}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[90311,93291,100996,101906,107259,109101,282810,362299,9045574,9418565,9420388,9420883,9421469,9422642,9476961,9808243],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1236346/download","id":4493615,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/01/19/house_committees_authority_to_investigate_for_impeachment.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:30:58.802563Z","date_created":"2020-01-20T19:01:11.963438Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"26f179c84bb00e5c67d0baf04ca7066b882c8ab1","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n                    House Committees’ Authority to\n                     Investigate for Impeachment\nThe House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an\n  impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before\n  the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the\n  House’s power of impeachment.\nThe House had not authorized an impeachment investigation in connection with\n  impeachment-related ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4493615],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House's power of impeachment. The House had not authorized an impeachment investigation in connection with impeachment-related subpoenas issued by House committees before October 31, 2019, and the subpoenas therefore had no compulsory effect. The House's adoption of Resolution 660 on October 31, 2019, did not alter the legal status of those subpoenas, because the resolution did not ratify or otherwise address their terms."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10356499/state-v-wolfe/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Wolfe","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 866"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":10356499,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"29759","docket_id":69737479,"judge":"Huffman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-14T14:13:26.510447Z","date_created":"2025-03-14T14:13:26.403933Z","score":{"bm25":10.844779}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 866","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[98094,106126,106285,107014,107481,108639,109693,110138,111206,134724,142875,145641,231924,264122,2690277,2690568,2690788,2692715,2692831,2693058,2704076,2707112,2831962,2959736,3180700,3182855,3688100,3715903,3728421,3733896,3737007,3738045,3740840,3741974,3746130,3754135,3774460,4030961,4150776,4155021,4172133,4270674,4289930,4644567,4651938,4678012,4765660,4959086,5125567,6322396,6336492,6755892,6756041,6757227,6759822,6760004,6760164,6760297,6760883,6762353,6763069,6763551,6765982,6771729,6775376,7085951,7802052,9346457,9369686,9392657,9882624,9894899,10742858],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2025/2025-Ohio-866.pdf","id":10823087,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/14/state_v._wolfe.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-03T20:16:44.633203Z","date_created":"2025-03-14T14:13:26.442459Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"efed03f8feab2be7c1d9c98a929d0eb499a31c51","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Wolfe, 2025-Ohio-866.]\n\n\n\n\n                                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                                   SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                      MONTGOMERY COUNTY\n\n STATE OF OHIO                                     :\n                                                   :\n       Appellee                                    :   C.A. No. 29759\n                                                   :\n v.                                         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10823087],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"After appellant stole a car with a child inside, he was convicted of kidnapping, grand theft (auto), and petty theft. The trial court correctly found that it, and not the jury, was required to determine the repeat violent offender specification. Appellant's convictions for kidnapping and grand theft were not subject to merger. Plain error is not demonstrated in the trial court's denial of separate trials for appellant's offenses. There was no evidence that the State had failed to preserve materially exculpatory evidence allegedly contained in a body camera video and, in any event, the failure to admit such evidence would have been harmless error. Appellant's right to confrontation was not violated by the court's admission of the child-victim's excited utterance or by the fact that the child did not testify at trial. Appellant was not denied due process or the right to cross-examine a witness who identified him by means of a photo array by the fact that she did not testify at a suppression hearing; the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, and the witness was not required to testify. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that direct and circumstantial evidence are of equal weight. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's motion to suppress surveillance video footage from a nearby business; appellant's challenge was not based upon Fourth Amendment principles but on the video's authenticity, which went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Appellant was not denied compulsory process because a witness he subpoenaed for a suppression hearing was not properly served, and he had no right to subpoena a witness to a pretrial conference. Because appellant did not raise the issue of the witnesses' failure to appear at trial, the issue was waived. Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant's right to a speedy trial was not violated. The Reagan Tokes Act, under which appellant was sentenced, is not unconstitutional. However, the trial court did not provide all of the advisements required under the Reagan Tokes Act at sentencing, and it committed plain error in failing to determine restitution at the sentencing hearing. Although the Tier I sex offender/child victim offender designation arose by operation of law, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose it in a separate judgment entry after an appeal had been filed. Judgment reversed with respect to sentencing and remanded for resentencing consistent with the Reagan Tokes Act, the proper imposition of the Tier 1 designation, and proper consideration of restitution. Judgment affirmed in all other respects."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10670695/state-v-mcmahon/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. McMahon","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 3295"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10670695,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-09-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2025-CA-7","docket_id":71326035,"judge":"Lewis","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-12T15:11:26.895671Z","date_created":"2025-09-12T15:11:26.802626Z","score":{"bm25":10.832591}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 3295","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2694133,3742843,6755574],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2025/2025-Ohio-3295.pdf","id":11137282,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/12/state_v._mcmahon.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:20:09.247626Z","date_created":"2025-09-12T15:11:26.821461Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d8b804f6fcec628e8ce8c505915ba261070718f1","snippet":"[Cite as State v. McMahon, 2025-Ohio-3295.]\n\n\n                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                       CLARK COUNTY\n\n STATE OF OHIO                                     :\n                                                   :    C.A. No. 2025-CA-7\n       Appellee                                    :\n                                                   :    Trial Court Case No. 24-CR-0632\n v.        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11137282],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The trial court was not required to inform appellant that no one could comment on his silence if he chose to go forward with a trial and did not testify. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 by informing appellant of the constitutional rights he was waiving by entering his guilty pleas, including the right against self-incrimination. Judgment affirmed."}]}