Volume 198 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Motion for Summary Judgment - Defamation - Limited purpose public figure - Granting motion for fees and costs

Illegal contract void as a matter of law declaratory judgment de novo violation of municipal ordinance Malum in se purpose of the legislature criminal or administrative remedies render contract void.

The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - sufficiency manifest weight domestic violence felonious assault serious physical harm to persons temporary, substantial incapacity. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - fair trial due process restrained in front of the jury threat of violence right to be physically present at sentencing Crim.R. 43(A)(1) no prejudice harmless error. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - sentencing law R.C. 2967.121 facial challenge Reagan Tokes Law is not unconstitutional on its face due process liberty interest presumptive release date notice of proscribed conduct procedural safeguards additional term hearing whether the rebuttable presumption of release is more akin to parole revocation or parole eligibility is an as-applied challenge and not ripe for review due process does not require a court hearing separation of powers judicially imposed sentence parole board.

The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to sever. The trial court did not err in its evidentiary determinations regarding bias or motive to misrepresent. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to determine the reliability of the complaining witness since it ultimately involved a credibility determination reserved for the trier of fact. Defendant-Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed.

CIVIL - concealment of estate assets R.C. 2109.52 damages legal effect of jury verdict manifest weight of the evidence transcript attorney fees American rule bad faith.

The trial court did not err by admitting defendant-appellant's written assertions, which did not constitute evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts under Evid.R. 404(B). The trial court did not err by admitting a lay witness's out-of-court identification. Defendant-appellant's burglary and menacing-by-stalking convictions are based on sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant's challenges to Reagan Tokes Law are rejected based upon our prior precedent. Judgment affirmed.