Volume 206 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

The trial court did not err by failing to include a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of purposeful murder and felony murder because, under the circumstances of this case, such an instruction would have improperly duplicated the murder charges. The trial court also did not err by adding language to the standard jury instruction on appellant's blackout defense where the additional language was a correct, pertinent statement of law that applied to the facts of appellant's case. In addition, appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the various ineffective assistance claims raised by appellant lack merit. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant was convicted of murder, involuntary manslaughter, improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, and having weapons while under disability. Appellant's convictions were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in admitting Facebook Messenger messages the messages were properly authenticated, did not contain inadmissible hearsay, and were not contrary to Evid.R. 404(B). The playing of an audio-recording of an absent witness's prior probable cause hearing testimony did not violate appellant's rights under the Confrontation Clause or Evid.R. 804. No ineffective assistance of counsel or cumulative error demonstrated. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in finding that a late payment fee provision in a contract was a penalty instead of being enforceable as liquidated damages. Under the established test for resolving this issue, appellant's damages were not uncertain as to amount or difficult to prove. The trial court correctly found no relationship between the late fee and appellant's damages. The court also did not err in refusing to pierce the corporate veil, as there was insufficient evidence that the party who signed the contract had exercised control over a limited liability corporation in such a manner as to commit fraud, an illegal act, or a similarly unlawful act. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant's convictions for persistent disorderly conduct and obstructing official business were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Those convictions will be affirmed. Appellant's conviction for failure to disclose personal information will be vacated, because there was no evidence that officers asked for his information in a public place. Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Because Marsy's Law defines a "victim" as a person who is both "directly and proximately" harmed by a criminal act, it is not enough that there be merely a causal connection between the criminal act and the harm ultimately sustained by a third-party such as an insurer. The resulting harm must not only be the "proximate" result of the criminal act but must also be the "direct" result of the criminal act. Because an insurance company is not a "victim" under Marsy's Law, there is no constitutional or statutory authority for a trial court to order a criminal defendant to pay restitution to an insurance company as part of his sentence.

In a case arising from injuries suffered by the plaintiff after consuming a chicken bone in a boneless chicken wing, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants where the record established the presence of a chicken bone in a boneless chicken wing prepared from a cubed chicken breast is a natural occurrence that plaintiff reasonably could have anticipated and guarded against.

Defendant on judicial release violated community control sanctions. Court revoked release and reimposed original prison term. Defendant argued sentence contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Court of appeals held R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) not applicable to appellate review of revocation of community control and reimposition of a sentence under R.C. 2929.20(K). Abuse of discretion standard applied.

CRIMINAL - Felony restitution R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) restitution must be an amount based on the victim's economic loss direct cause proximate cause receiving stolen property identity fraud consequential costs.

Jury conviction and sentence for three felony offenses with firearm specifications affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, for nunc pro tunc entry.

Dormant Mineral Act R.C. 5301.56 Notice of Abandonment Reasonable diligence R.C. 5301.48 Marketable Title Act Root of Title Oil and Gas Exception and Reservation Blackstone v. Moore, 155 Ohio St. 3d 448, 2018-Ohio-4959, 122 N.E.3d 132, ¶ 12 determining whether mineral interest was preserved..

In case involving several charges of rape, appellant was not deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court did not err in allowing expert testimony and the trial court's erroneous admission of double hearsay was harmless. The prosecutor's comments during closing, while improper, did not constitute reversible prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences.

Discovery-trial court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery when discovery would not have been fruitful given that dispositive summary judgment motion based upon res judicata remained pending Civ.R. 15(A)-trial court did not err by determining that opposing counsel did not give written consent to amended pleading when counsel agreed to a proposed case scheduling order before scheduling conference with the court trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking amended pleading or by denying leave to file amended pleading when amendment would be futile due to res-judicata bar Civ.R. 56(C)-trial court did not incorrectly grant summary judgment when res-judicata and the law-of-the-case doctrine dictated the outcome of the proceedings.

Expungement seal records R.C. 2953.31 R.C. 2953.32 equal protection violation. The trial court did not err when it found appellant did not qualify as an eligible offender under R.C. 2953.31 and denied appellant's motion to seal his prior convictions.

Law enforcement investigatory privilege subpoena prosecutor file Frankenhauser factors de novo in camera compelling need public's interest. The trial court erred in part when it denied the prosecutor's office a protective order over its files related to open, ongoing cases and investigations. Pursuant to a de novo in camera inspection of the files at issue, we find that the plaintiff-appellee has not demonstrated a compelling need that outweighs the public's interest in keeping the vast majority of the documents within the prosecutor's files confidential. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Trial court did not err when it denied a stay of discovery on the insureds' bad faith claim against their underinsured motorist carrier and ordered production of the claims file prior to trial of the breach of contract claim, because the trial court permitted the insurer to redact attorney-client communications prior to production and the insurer failed to show that the claims file contained additional attorney-client communications. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion when it compelled immediate production of work product materials in the claims file as the trial court provided a reasonable explanation for doing so and the prejudice to the insurer was minimal. Trial court abused its discretion, however, when it compelled production of work product materials pertaining solely to the insurer's defense of the bad faith lawsuit but not otherwise probative of the insurer's alleged bad faith in processing the claim. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and case remanded.