Volume 154 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Civil Rules of Procedure do not apply in determining timeliness of request for a jury trial in forcible entry and detainer actions because no answer is required and because R.C. 1923.09(A) specifically provides for a bench trial when no jury request has been received by the return date of the summons.

CIVIL - breach of fiduciary duty fiduciary duty to creditors of corporation or LLC officer or member of LLC insolvent company wasting corporate assets R.C. 1705.292 R.C. 1705.48 motion to dismiss de novo

AUTOS/CRIMINAL — DRIVING UNDER OVI SUSPENSION —EVIDENCE — STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — OPERATE: Where defendant was found sleeping in the driver's seat of a parked car with the engine running while several others were also asleep in the car, defendant's conviction for operating a motor vehicle under an OVI suspension in violation of R.C. 4510.14(A) was not supported by sufficient evidence that she operated a motor vehicle where the term "operate" for purposes of R.C. 4510.14(A) necessitates evidence that defendant caused or had caused movement of the vehicle and the state provided no evidence that defendant moved the vehicle, and conceded defendant did not actually move the vehicle. [But see DISSENT: Defendant's conviction for operating a motor vehicle under an OVI suspension in violation of R.C. 4510.14(A) was supported by sufficient evidence that she operated a motor vehicle where the term "operate" does not require proof that defendant ever had the vehicle in motion and the legislative history shows the legislature limited the application of R.C. 4511.01(HHH) and declined to apply R.C. 4511.01(HHH)'s definition of "operate" to R.C. 4510.14(A).]

Attempted murder R.C. 2903.02 R.C. 2923.02 improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation felonious assault breaking and entering right to counsel ineffective assistance of counsel structural error sufficiency circumstantial evidence intent other acts evidence Evid.R. 404(B) plain error motive prosecutorial misconduct prearrest silence. Appellant was not denied his constitutional rights to counsel or the effective assistance of counsel. Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error in admitting the victim's testimony about her strained relationship with appellant or testimony regarding appellant's cell phone records. The state did not impermissibly comment on appellant's prearrest silence, nor did the state commit prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.

The trial court did not err by dismissing appellant's administrative appeal after concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the appeal.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting appellant's application for postconviction DNA testing.

road salt, political subdivision immunity, governmental function, removal of snow and ice, R.C. 2744.01, R.C. 2744.02

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — FOURTH AMENDMENT — SEARCH AND SEIZURE — WARRANT REQUIREMENT — GOOD-FAITH EXCEPTION — OVI: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress medical records containing alcohol- and drug-test results, created for medical purposes during emergency treatment of defendant, even though the law enforcement officer's warrantless acquisition of the records during an OVI investigation violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, because, considering the state of the law in 2017, it was objectively reasonable for the officer to rely on a now-revised departmental policy implementing a procedure set forth in R.C. 2317.02(B)(2)(a) and 2317.022 for obtaining these records from the health care provider without a warrant, and therefore, the good-faith exception protected the evidence from the exclusionary rule.

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellant because the general contractor and the subcontractor did not owe a duty of care to appellant.

UCCJEA—jurisdiction—home state—unborn child