Volume 200 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Judgment affirmed where trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing equitable considerations in entering judgment of eviction and ordering forfeiture of the leased premises.

Because the trial court's decision granting joinder of nonparty in divorce action lacked sufficient clarity to enable meaningful appellate review, remand was necessary for the trial court to consider whether granting joinder was proper and to provide explanation or reasoning in support of such determination.

Record transcript recording competency sealed regularity prejudice App.R. 9 bench trial review. Defendant was materially prejudiced by the trial court's failure to record the majority of the trial proceedings. The defendant has demonstrated that a request was made at trial that the proceedings be recorded or that objections were made to the failures to record, an effort was made on appeal to comply with App.R. 9 and to reconstruct what occurred or to establish its importance, and material prejudice resulted from the failure to record the proceedings at issue.

Appellant's no contest pleas to aggravated vehicular manslaughter and operating a vehicle while intoxicated were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary the record does not support appellant's assertion that she was unable to understand the proceedings due to a brain injury. The court considered the presentence investigation report in imposing sentence, which addressed her work history and prospects, and we infer that the trial court fulfilled its duty to consider appellant's present and future ability to pay her financial sanctions. Appellant's fines for her offenses were not contrary to law. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in defense counsel's failure to request a hearing regarding appellant's ability to pay her fines. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court reasonably credited the testimony of the State's witnesses that appellant approached the victim's vehicle, ignited a combustible item, placed it under the vehicle, and fled the scene as an explosion occurred. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of criminal damaging proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court's judgment also was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

motion to dismiss – failure to state a claim – at-will employee – wrongful discharge in violation of public policy – extension – discovery

animal cruelty – reckless – horse care – malnourished – underweight

The court of common pleas did not apply the incorrect standard of review in determining an order of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, which revoked appellant's child care center license, to be supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Appellant additionally failed to show prejudice to warrant reversal since the undisputed administrative code violations provided appellee a legal basis under R.C. 5104.04(D) to impose revocation as a sanction. Judgment affirmed.

CIVIL - joint economic development district summary judgment income tax exemption R.C. 715.72(Q) owner business operating within the district R.C. 715.72(A)(7)

CRIMINAL LAW - sufficiency of the evidence, reckless homicide, perversely disregarded known risks dry firing handgun in close proximity, tampering with evidence, sufficient evidence appellant removed all traces of himself from the scene prosecutorial misconduct, legitimately questioned witness in effort to bolster his credibility, failed to demonstrate improper or prejudice, remark regarding appellant's post-arrest silence and lack of curative instruction by trial court was troubling, however any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt hearsay rule does not apply to out of court statement when it is used to explain subsequent actions of witness.

Under the federal Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Act (SGLIA), an insured spouse has an absolute right to change the beneficiary of a SGLIA policy. The insured spouse's fraudulent behavior of failing to disclose to a court that the beneficiary of a SGLIA policy has been changed to someone other than the person the court has ordered is not the type of fraud that warrants protection from preemption. On summary judgment, a court need not consider deposition testimony that would be inadmissible in court because it is based on hearsay and because the witness lacks personal knowledge of the matters testified to. Federal law governs a former spouse's right to a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity and preempts inconsistent state law. A trial court has no authority to change the beneficiary of a SBP annuity or to impose a constructive trust over annuity payments.

CRIMINAL - manifest weight of the evidence sufficiency of the evidence Rape Felonious Assault Kidnapping merger evidence of penetration credibility of witness inconsistent testimony physical evidence purpose to inflict serious physical harm consecutive sentence harm to the victim Reagan Tokes void-for-vagueness separation of powers right to trial by jury due process parole revocation

Sufficiency/weight - Mistrial-Reagan Tokes

Sufficiency of the evidence dereliction of duty R.C. 2921.44(C)(2) R.C. 2921.44(C)(5) definition of "officer" falsification R.C. 2921.13(A)(1) R.C. 2921.13(A)(3) prejudicial evidence Evid.R. 403(A) other acts evidence Evid.R. 404(B) abuse of discretion harmless error probative value Crim.R. 52 limiting instruction prejudicial error App.R. 12. There was sufficient evidence to support the misdemeanor convictions of appellant, who was Cuyahoga County's former regional director of corrections, for dereliction of duty and falsification. Appellant was an "officer" under the dereliction-of-duty statute. Because the word "officer" is not defined in the statute, we give the term its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning. Although appellant was appointed by the county executive, substantial evidence showed he held an office of trust, authority, or command. There was also sufficient evidence that appellant lied to county council during a council meeting when he said that he never blocked the hiring of nurses at the county jails. The trial court abused its discretion and committed prejudicial error warranting a new trial when it allowed into evidence substantial testimony regarding nine inmate deaths that occurred before, during, and after appellant's tenure as regional director of corrections. The probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice to appellant. The multiple, combined errors were not harmless. The errors had an impact on the verdict. The conduct of the state combined with evidentiary error to cause greater impact. There was no probative value to the admission of an image taken from a jail security camera of an inmate shortly before the inmate died. The minimal limiting instructions the trial court gave to the jury were insufficient to overcome the admission of inadmissible evidence of inmate deaths. Even if the remaining evidence established appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the blatant prejudice warrants a new trial. Witness testimony regarding appellant's negative attitude was harmless error.