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: Thursday, May 8, 2025

CAPTION: sTATE V. hALL 

APPEAL No.: C-240317

TRIAL No.: b-2303830

KEY WORDS: fOURTH AMENDMENT – TERRY STOP – SEIZURE – SECOND AMENDMENT – cONCEALED cARRY – R.C. 2923.12

SUMMARY: Police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk defendant where the officer had heard gunshots coming from a nearby apartment complex late at night, the officer was familiar with the complex from responding to frequent shots-fired calls, a passerby corroborated the officer’s suspicion as to the gunshots’ location of origin, defendant was one of only two men at that location when the officer arrived only two minutes later, defendant and the other man appeared to be a pair, and one of the two men had a bulge in his pocket consistent with a firearm.

The statute prohibiting defendant from carrying a concealed handgun did not violate the Second Amendment, as our nation has a longstanding history and tradition of prohibiting some or all individuals from carrying concealed protected arms, at least where those individuals remain able to bear them openly for self-defense.

Because the Ohio Supreme Court has already held that R.C. 2923.12 “does not unconstitutionally infringe the right to bear arms” under the Ohio Constitution in Klein v. Leis, 2003-Ohio-4779, ¶ 15, and because recent cases interpreting the United States Constitution have not altered Klein’s interpretation of the Ohio Constitution, the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss under Ohio Const., art. I, § 4.

JUDGMENT: affirmed

JUDGES: PINION by Crouse, P.J.; NESTOR and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.

 

CAPTION: STATE V. LUCAS

APPEAL NO.: C-240377 

TRIAL NO.: B-2305489

KEY WORDS: GUILTY PLEA – SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION – CRIM.R. 11

SUMMARY: The trial court erred in accepting defendant’s guilty pleas where it did not properly explain pursuant to Crim.R. 11 that defendant was waiving his right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. 

JUDGMENT: REVERSED, PLEAS VACATED, AND CAUSE REMANDED

JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.