FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wednesday, April 24, 2024
CAPTION: STATE V. ROBERTS
APPEAL NO.: C-220615
TRIAL NO.: B-1904356
KEY WORDS: CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION — MIRANDA — FIFTH AMENDMENT — EVID.R. 404(B) — AGGRAVATED MURDER — AGGRAVATED ROBBERY — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — EVIDENCE TAMPERING — R.C. 2921.12(A)
SUMMARY: Where defendant was not given Miranda warnings while in police custody, the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting his statements.
Where defendant had stopped the car he was driving on the side of the road and a police officer stopped to check on defendant’s welfare, defendant was in custody for purposes of the Miranda warnings because, several minutes into the encounter, a reasonable person would have understood himself to be in custody.
Where defendant was convicted of the aggravated murder of his mother, evidence of defendant taking his aunt’s car without her permission and of her observation of smoldering curtains in her dining room at the time of his departure were inadmissible for the purpose of proving intent, motive, preparation, and plan under Evid.R. 404(B).
Where there was evidence that there was recent tension between defendant and the victim, that defendant was around the victim at the time of her death, and that there was a struggle which lasted at least a few minutes between defendant and the victim, there was sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design to support an aggravated murder conviction under R.C. 2903.01(A).
Where defendant was found with the victim’s car and wallet soon after he left the victim’s residence and she was later found strangled to death in her residence, a conviction for aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) would have been supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Where there was no evidence of when defendant reset his cell phone or when he knew about an ongoing investigation, defendant’s conviction for evidence tampering was not supported by sufficient evidence.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED IN PART, AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED IN PART
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; BERGERON, J., CONCURS and ZAYAS, P.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
CAPTION: SCHAFER V. LEVEY
APPEAL NO.: C-230410
TRIAL NO.: A-1900882
KEY WORDS: JURISDICTION —ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE — DISCOVERY
SUMMARY: The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to compel communications between plaintiff and her former attorney without conducting an evidentiary hearing or in-camera review to determine the applicability of the attorney-client privilege.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; BOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.
CAPTIONS: STATE V. SHINHOLSTER
STATE V. WILLIAMS
APPEAL NOS.: C-230457, C-230436
TRIAL NOS.: B-2203537-A, B-2203537-B
KEY WORDS: EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – SELF-DEFENSE – FELONIOUS ASSAULT – AIDING AND ABETTING – MERGER – ALLIED OFFENSES – CRIM.R. 29
SUMMARY: The trial court did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice with respect to its finding that the state had disproven at least one element of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Where the judge orally denied defendant’s Crim.R. 29 motion during trial and found defendant guilty of the correct counts, the trial court’s clerical error on its entry denying defendant’s Crim.R. 29 motion does not provide a basis for vacating the conviction.
Defendant’s convictions for two counts of felonious assault were allied offenses where defendant committed both offenses with the same animus against the same victim.
Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant arrived at the affray armed and instructed her codefendant to shoot.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN C-230457; AFFIRMED IN PART, SENTENCES VACATED, AND CAUSE REMANDED IN C-230436
JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, J.; BOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.