Volume 212 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying landlord's motion to dismiss a rent escrow application. Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss without making a finding of noncompliance materially affecting tenant's health and safety. Duhart.

Following a hearing before the village council, appellant was terminated from her position as police chief. In the subsequent administrative appeal, the trial court affirmed the dismissal, but it did not apply the required de novo standard of review thus, we reverse of the trial court's judgment and remand for review of the termination decision de novo. The village council did not violate the Open Meetings Act, R.C. 121.22, by conducting its deliberations in executive session. Because the trial court will conduct a de novo review on remand, any error that occurred due to the village solicitor's presence during a portion of the executive session deliberations is harmless. Appellant's initial one-day suspension did not comport with R.C. 737.171, but this failure did not affect council's termination decision. In light of our remand for a de novo review, we need not consider appellant's other assignments of error. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

CIVIL CONTEMPT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT INDIRECT CONTEMPT DIRECT CONTEMPT INTENT TO DEFY PUNITIVE. Intent to defy the court is an essential element of indirect criminal contempt that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to appear at a hearing is indirect contempt. When determining whether a contempt is criminal or civil in nature, courts look to the purpose of the proceeding. Criminal contempt seeks to punish an affront to the dignity of the court or the legal process. Thus, criminal contempt has a punitive purpose rather than a coercive or remedial purpose.

UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE – R.C. 2913.03(A) – AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – 2913.03(C)(1) – RESTITUTION: Defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a reasonable-mistake defense as codified in R.C. 2913.03(C)(1): defendant's mistaken belief that he was authorized to use the motorcycle was unreasonably premised on two anonymous individuals gifting defendant the motorcycle as they were discarding it on the side of the road.The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the motorcycle-owner victim restitution to cover the cost of repairing the motorcycle where victim testimony and pictures showed that the motorcycle was modified when it was in defendant's possession and those modifications were consistent with the unauthorized use of the motorcycle in violation of R.C. 2913.03(A).

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – IDENTIFICATION – ADMISSIBILITY – EVIDENCE – EVID.R. 404(B) – OTHER ACTS – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – SENTENCING –CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES: The trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion to suppress the pretrial identification because defendant did not establish that the state employed an unduly suggestive lineup procedure. The trial court did not err in violation of Evid.R. 404(B) by admitting evidence depicting defendant with a gun and marijuana where the evidence was admissible to prove identity and the record contains no evidence that the trial court improperly considered the gun or marijuana. Defendant did not establish that the victims' in-court identifications were the result of unnecessarily suggestive procedures employed by the state. Defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence where multiple victims identified defendant and the factfinder found the victims' testimony to be credible. The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences where the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court's proportionality findings.

CIVIL - construction contract summary judgment counterclaim breach of contract unjust enrichment change orders waiver weight of the evidence conversion defamation attorney fees indemnification

court costs R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) R.C. 2947.23(C) special project fees plain error abuse of discretion ability to pay

Self-defense jury view abuse of discretion plain error duty to retreat instruction prosecutorial misconduct judicial bias prejudice right to remain silent gatekeeper sufficient manifest weight persuasion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's request for a jury view. The defendant's convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. The trial court's jury instruction on the affirmative defense of self-defense was not inaccurate or otherwise misleading. The trial court did not display bias by instructing the defendant to refrain from testifying in the narrative on cross-examination. The state did not commit prosecutorial misconduct during its cross-examination of the defendant or during its closing remarks. The defendant waived his right to remain silent by knowingly and intelligently exercising his right to testify on his own behalf.