Volume 208 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Indictment probable cause R.C. 2945.37 competency hearing sufficient indicia of incompetency sufficiency of the evidence attempted murder manifest weight of the evidence credibility of witnesses. Defendant was convicted of attempted murder, felonious assault, weapons while under disability, discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises, improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, and carrying a concealed weapon. Defendant's challenge that the indictments were not based upon probable cause is not well taken where the indictments are valid on their face. Trial court erred by not holding a hearing to determine defendant's competency where competency report did not determine whether defendant could assist counsel. Because the record does not contain sufficient evidence of incompetency regarding defendant's ability to assist counsel, the error by the trial court was harmless. There was sufficient evidence of the charge of attempted murder where the victim was shot in the leg causing life-threatening injury and the defendant fired three more times at the victim before leaving the scene. The convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the identification of the defendant by eyewitnesses was corroborated by other evidence and it was within the jury's province to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses even though they had initially identified another suspect.

Ineffective assistance of counsel conflict of interest affidavit of disqualification no contest plea Crim.R. 11(B)(2). - Failure of defendant's first attorney to disclose that he was under investigation by the Ohio Supreme Court for professional misconduct was not ineffective assistance of counsel where defendant failed to demonstrate the investigation created a conflict of interest between him and his lawyer failure of defendant's second attorney to file an affidavit of disqualification was not ineffective assistance of counsel where there was no evidence the trial court judge was disqualified in any way to preside in the proceedings the trial court did not violate Crim.R. 11(B)(2) where it found the defendant guilty of disorderly conduct after the defendant pleaded no contest to the charge and there was no evidence the trial court considered the guilty verdict in that case in rendering its verdict in a bench trial involving the defendant in another case.

Summary judgment negligence negligence per se natural accumulation of ice and snow substantially dangerous condition no-duty winter rule open and obvious motion to amend complaint prima facie case. Trial court acted within its discretion in denying motion to amend complaint where plaintiff failed to present evidence establishing a prima facie case for the claims she sought to have added. Trial court properly granted summary judgment in defendants' favor where plaintiff slipped and fell on a natural accumulation of ice and snow, she failed to present evidence of a substantially dangerous condition that preclude application of the no-duty winter rule, and plaintiff admitted that she was aware of minor defects in the parking lot prior to her fall.

The trial court did not err by failing to suppress un-Mirandized statements that appellant made to investigating officers during two separate interviews the interviews in question were not custodial interrogations that required Miranda warnings. Appellant's aggravated vehicular homicide convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly established that appellant recklessly caused the deaths of three individuals while operating a motor vehicle. Appellant's multiple ineffective assistance of counsel claims lack merit because appellant failed to establish deficient performance and prejudice. Appellant's claim that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument also lacks merit, as appellant failed to establish that any of the State's comments were improper. Judgment affirmed.

CIVIL - Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 Contract law Title insurance R.C. 2953.01 monoline insurance R.C. 3953.10 No duty to defend a claim where the complaint does not implicate a defect or encumbrance in title A claim affects title only if it alters interests in the land title insurance company has no duty to defend an uncovered claim asserted in a separate pleading from a covered claim easement.

The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress the evidence found in the trunk of his car where officers had probable cause to search the trunk of the car based on the facts known at the time of the search and a canine's positive alert to the presence of narcotics. The trial court also did not err in finding that appellant's initial Miranda warnings remained effective throughout the duration of a short transport to the police station and throughout the duration of a custodial interview. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to subpoena a witness whose testimony was entirely speculative and whose testimony would not have significantly assisted appellant's defense. Counsel was also not ineffective for failing to object to highly probative evidence. While the trial court did err in imposing consecutive indefinite prison terms, the error did not rise to the level of plain error, as the calculation of the prison sentence did not affect appellant's substantial rights.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL - motion to dismiss lack of subject matter jurisdiction Civ.R. 12(B)(1) board of revision filing of notice of appeal R.C. 5717.05 actual delivery equitable estoppel mailbox rule evidentiary hearing.

motion to suppress, custodial interrogation, admission of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, manifest weight of the evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, consent, force

Juvenile court did not err by granting permanent custody of children to Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS"). Appellants failed to challenge prior findings that FCCS engaged in reasonable efforts to reunify children and could not challenge those earlier findings after the permanent custody decision. There was competent, credible evidence to support the juvenile court's conclusion that granting permanent custody was in the children's best interest although the juvenile court did not expressly address the language and cultural issues in the case, it did not clearly lose its way in concluding that granting permanent custody was in the children's best interest.

The trial court's decision to impose the maximum possible jail term for each of appellant's four vehicular manslaughter offenses was not an abuse of discretion. Judgments affirmed.

RAPE – SEXUAL BATTERY – OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – RAPE-SHEILD STATUTE – EXPERT TESTIMONY – HARMLESS ERROR – CUMULATIVE ERROR: It was harmless error when the trial court improperly admitted evidence that defendant had sexually abused the victim outside of Ohio where the out-of-state acts were substantially similar to the charged acts of rape and sexual battery in Ohio and played a relatively minor role in the victim's overall narrative of events, the state did not emphasize the out-of-state acts in closing argument, and the remaining evidence of guilt was strong enough to stand on its own. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of defendant's web-search history for pornography that bore a striking similarity to the charged acts of rape and sexual battery because such web searches were relevant to defendant's state of mind. The trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the victim's prior allegations of sexual abuse under the rape-shield statute because nothing in the record supported defendant's claim that the victim's allegations were entirely false. It was harmless error for the trial court to admit expert testimony that the expert believed that sexual abuse had occurred based on nothing more than the victim's statements because the state did not mention the expert's testimony during closing argument and the other evidence against defendant was strong enough to stand on its own. The cumulative effect of the harmless errors during defendant's trial were not so significant as to create a reasonable probability that the outcome would be different had none of the harmless errors occurred based on the lack of emphasis placed on the improperly admitted evidence by the state and the strength of the remaining evidence against the defendant.