Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

Previously I wrote about how inadequate verdict forms could mean the early release of convicts. This is so because of the Ohio Supreme Court decision in State v. Pelfrey, 2007-Ohio-256. The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Richland County just reduced a fourth degree felony to a first degree misdemeanor because it was not clear from the verdict form that the jury intended to convict the defendant of the fourth degree felony version of failure to appear. And they did so even though the defendant had already been sentenced a couple times and failed to raise the issue previously. The dissenting judge did not like it as you can read in the decision in State v. Nichols, 2010-Ohio-3104, by clicking here.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge stated that a term of post-release control did not apply to this aggravated murder case. Then in the Sentencing Entry the judge ordered the defendant to serve five years of post-release control. Both of these positions were incorrect and the Second District Court of Appeals reversed the sentence and remanded the case to the trial court so the defendant could be sentenced to the correct three year term of post-release control. Read the decision by clicking here.

Sexual abuse charges are tough to defend. What do you do if a child (or former child) is sitting on the witness stand telling a judge or jury that you did x, y, and z to them? At least you get to confront the witness accusing you of these horrific things, right? At least your attorney gets to ask them questions, right? Well, maybe not.

Nowadays child victims are often interviewed by a social worker who is trained to get information out of the child for use against you at your trial. They do it one-on-one so the child is not intimidated. They make the environment nice and cozy for the child for optimal disclosure of details about the alleged abuse while police and CSB workers watch behind a one-way mirror or over closed circuit tv. And then if the child is not available to testify against you at trial, the State just uses the recording of that cozy interview at your trial to get the conviction and get you locked in a cage for most of your life.

What about the Confrontation Clause? Not a problem, says the Ohio Supreme Court. The OSC today held that "statements made to interviewers at child-advocacy centers that are made for medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial and are admissible without offending the Confrontation Clause." Which statements are those? Oh, you know, the statements like "he did x, y, and z to me." The ones that can get you convicted and locked up. Read the decision in State v. Arnold, 2010-Ohio-2742, by clicking here or review the oral argument by clicking here.

The decision to grant or deny a defendant's motion to continue his trial is left to the "sound discretion" of the trial judge. The Sixth District Court of Appeals determined that a Lucas County Judge abused her discretion in denying a request for a continuance in State v. Packer, 2010-Ohio-2627.

Packer was representing himself as he faced obstruction of justice and nonsupport of dependents charges and a week before trial he sought Psychiatric care due to serious emotional problems he was having. The doctor prescribed two drugs and those drugs impaired Packer's ability to defend himself. He requested a continuance, but the trial judge denied his request since she felt it was just a "delay tactic" and Packer was just "trying to delay the inevitable."

When Packer did not show for trial the next day, the judge even allowed the State to put on seven witnesses with no defense present whatsoever (now there's justice for you). Thankfully, the Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed on appeal because the trial judge's attitude in denying the requests for a continuance on day one was "unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." Read the decision by clicking here.

Winning on appeal is not easy. But one way to get your conviction reversed after a jury trial is to find a problem with the jury instructions. That is what happened in State v. Fine, 2010-Ohio-2637, out of Miami County. To put it simply, the State had to prove A + B + C to convict the defendant. But the judge messed up the jury instruction once and told the jury that they "must" find the defendant guilty if the State proved A OR B OR C. The Second District Court of Appeals wrote, "[b]y instructing the jury the way it did, the trial court relieved the State of its burden to prove the requisite three elements contained in Section 304.7, instead allowing a conviction if the jury found just one of the three elements proved. This is error that prejudiced Defendant, and is therefore reversible."

The jury instructions in your case (if you had a jury trial) are one of the things I will be looking at very closely if I am your lawyer on appeal. Read the decision in State v. Fine by clicking here or contact me by clicking here.

Section 2945.39 "along with its related statutes, authorizes a common pleas court to exercise continuing jurisdiction over a criminal defendant who has been charged with a violent first- or second-degree felony and who has been found incompetent to stand trial and remains so after the expiration of R.C. 2945.38's one-year time frame for restoring competency. R.C. 2945.39 authorizes the common pleas court to order the involuntary commitment of such a person in a mental-health facility when the statutory criteria are met." State v. Williams, 2010-Ohio-2453.

Today the Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 2945.39 is civil in nature, it is constitutional, and "a person committed under the statute need not be afforded the constitutional rights afforded to a defendant in a criminal prosecution."

Read the decision here, view the oral argument here or read the Second District Court of Appeals decision here.

Not Ohio police officers. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled today in City of Barberton v. Mark Jenney, 2010-Ohio-2420, that if a police officer 1) is trained in estimating a vehicle's speed by eyeballing it, 2) is certified by some organization that trains police, and 3) has experience in estimating speeds, then no other evidence is needed to support a conviction for speeding. Never mind that this officer's estimate was twelve MPH off of what his radar said the car was doing. Read the decision here or review oral argument here.