Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

The Eighth District Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County explained that an indictment informs the accused of the charged crime so she can prepare a defense. The Appellate Court further explained that "where a defendant is charged with intimidation of a 'victim of a crime,' an essential element of the charge is that the underlying crime occurred and thus created a victim" and it found that the defendant "is entitled to notice of the predicate crime in the indictment." In State v. Muniz, 2010-Ohio-3720, the State failed to include the predicate offense in the indictment and "the record [was] unclear as to the nature of the predicate offense." The Court of Appeals found the indictment was defective from the outset and fatal to the defendant's conviction because it did not give notice of the predicate offense. And the problem was not cured by the presentation of "some evidence at trial of the acts constituting a predicate offense." Read the decision here.

When the indictment does not charge a criminal offense, the trial court has no subject matter jurisdiction and your conviction is void. State v. Chessman, 2010-Ohio-3239, at ¶ 7. Chessman was accused (and convicted) of failing to notify the proper authorities of a change in his telephone numbers pursuant to R.C. 2950.05(D). But the penalty section of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) provides no penalty for such a violation. The Second District Court of Appeals stated per R.C. 2901.03(A) that, "where there is no penalty, there is no crime." Read the decision in which the Second District reversed and vacated Chessman's conviction by clicking here.

In State v. Hunter, the Court decided that the Foster decision did not eliminate the repeat violent offender add-on time from former 2929.01(DD) as you can read by clicking here. Watch the oral argument by clicking here.

And in State v. Lester, the Court held that aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) which contains the element of brandishing, displaying, using, or indicating possession of a deadly weapon, does not require the mental state of recklessness because "strict liability" is to be applied to that element as you can read by clicking here. And you can watch the oral argument by clicking here.