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: Friday, June 27, 2025
CAPTION: WORLEY V. DURRANI
APPEAL NO.: C-240386
TRIAL NO.: A-1700331
KEY WORDS: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE — CIV.R. 59 — NEW TRIAL — EVIDENCE — PREJUDICIAL ERROR
SUMMARY: The trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant defendants’ motion for a new trial where the trial court’s improper admission of evidence was not harmless as credibility of the defendant doctor was established as a key issue in the case by the end of voir dire and the improper admission of evidence assuredly impacted the jury’s determination of credibility in a close case to the point that we cannot say that the outcome of the trial would have been the same but for its admission.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; CROUSE and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. STOKES
APPEAL NO.: C-240420
TRIAL NO.: C/23/CRB/19312
KEY WORDS: ASSAULT – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE – SELF-DEFENSE
SUMMARY: In an assault case where defendant tenant slammed her apartment door on the landlord victim causing injury, the trial court’s guilty verdict was supported by sufficient evidence of defendant’s identity as the offender and knowledge that she committed the act charged, because she admitted such by way of her self-defense claim, and evidence showed that she was the individual living in the apartment unit and that she slammed the door shut.
The trial court’s decision that the State disproved defendant’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, because evidence showed that defendant knew it was the victim entering her apartment and that she purposefully slammed the door shut on him.
The trial court did not apply the incorrect burden of proof as to defendant’s self-defense claim, even though it did not explicitly state the standard and which element it believed the State disproved.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: MILLS FENCE CO., LLC V. KINNE
APPEAL NO.: C-240452
TRIAL NO.: A-2302019
KEY WORDS: FIDUCIARY DUTY – NONPROFIT CORPORATION
SUMMARY: The trial court erred when it held that defendants directors of a dissolved nonprofit corporation owed plaintiff creditor of the dissolved corporation fiduciary duties, as the relationship between the two does not rise to the level of one with special trust and confidence and under Ohio law directors do not owe creditors of a nonprofit corporation fiduciary duties.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. FIELDS
APPEAL NO.: C-240505
TRIAL NO.: 24/CRB/790
KEY WORDS: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — SELF-DEFENSE — ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE — CHARACTER EVIDENCE — CHARACTER OF THE VICTIM — EVID.R. 404 — EVID.R. 405 — FINANCIAL SANCTIONS — SENTENCING — NUNC PRO TUNC
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence on defendant’s claim of self-defense where the record credibly supports that defendant was at fault in creating the altercation by spraying the father of her child with mace when they crossed paths during the exchange of the child at the paternal grandmother’s apartment.
While the trial court may have erred in precluding defendant from testifying to specific instances of conduct allegedly perpetrated by the father of the child against former romantic partners to inform defendant’s state of mind during the confrontation, any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence contravening defendant’s self-defense claim.
The portion of the sentencing entry imposing a fine is sua sponte reversed and the matter is remanded for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc entry reflecting that the fine was remitted as stated in open court at the sentencing hearing.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; ZAYAS and BOCK, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. HINTON
APPEAL NO.: C-240518
TRIAL NO.: C/23/TRC/16618/A
KEY WORDS: OVI — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where defendant was involved in a single-car crash late at night; defendant admitted to consuming alcohol at a bar before the crash; defendant had slurred speech, glassy eyes, erratic behavior, and was unsteady on her feet, and where there was no evidence demonstrating that defendant’s characteristics of impairment were due to a head injury sustained in the car crash.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.