Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

A Lorain County man was indicted for trafficking in drugs. He moved to dismiss the trafficking counts because the State did not include the name of the drug he allegedly trafficked in those counts in the indictment. When the trial court denied his request, he pled "no contest" and was found guilty. On appeal to the Ninth District Court of Appeals for Lorain County his convictions for the trafficking counts were reversed. The Court of Appeals determined that the name of the specific drug trafficked was an essential element of the offense which had to be included in the indictment. Since it was not included, the trafficking counts in the indictment were insufficient. Read the decision in State v. Jackson, 2011-Ohio-4998, here.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com

Ohio Criminal Rule 7(D) allows the court to amend an indictment at any time "provided no change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged." In a case in Highland County Ohio, a trial judge allowed the State to amend the indictment to charge aggravated trafficking in drugs instead of the trafficking in drugs alleged in the indictment. The Fourth District Court of Appeals held that this was error because "this amendment [to the indictment] changed the name of the offense, and so the amendment is prohibited by Crim.R. 7(D)." Read the decision here.

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.