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, August 20, 2025
CAPTION: State v. Jones
APPEAL No.: C-230564
TRIAL No.: B-9508578
KEY WORDS: APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – Constitutional Law/ Criminal – Confrontation clause – cross-examination – prior testimony – Evid.R. 806 – Hearsay
SUMMARY: The trial court properly granted defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of the now-deceased police-officer witness given at defendant’s prior trial under the Confrontation Clause, where defendant had not been provided an adequate opportunity to cross-examine that witness at his prior trial because the State withheld records crucial to impeach the witness.
Defendant’s ability to introduce impeachment materials against an unavailable witness under Evid.R. 806 could not render the unavailable witness’s prior testimony admissible under the Confrontation Clause, where defendant did not have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine that witness in the prior proceeding.
[But see DISSENT: The trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the order excluding the testimony where the State had perfected its appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court of this court’s order denying the State leave to appeal the trial court’s previous order granting defendant a new trial.]
JUDGMENT: affirmed
JUDGES: OPINION by Crouse, J.; NESTOR, J., CONCURS and ZAYAS, P.J., DISSENTS.
CAPTION: CLARK V. DURRANI
APPEAL NO.: C-240294
TRIAL NO: A-1302874
KEY WORDS: CIV.R. 50(B) — JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT — CIV.R. 59(A) — MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE — ABSENT-DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION — EVID.R. 601(B)(5)(b) — EXPERT WITNESS —PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES — CIV.R. 17(A) —REAL PARTY IN INTEREST — CIV.R. 19(A) — JOINDER
SUMMARY: In a medical-malpractice case, the trial court did not err by denying defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Civ.R. 50(B) where the evidence showed that reasonable minds could not conclude in defendants’ favor, and the weight of the evidence was not contrary to the judgment and no reason for good cause to grant the motions was shown.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting defendants’ request for a comparative-negligence instruction where there was no evidence to support giving the instruction.
The trial court did not err a matter of law in giving its instruction on defendant doctor’s absence at trial as the trial court informed the jury that any inferences it drew from defendant doctor’s absence were permissive, not required; further, the fact that the jury found for defendants on some claims, and the instructions were tested by interrogatories, demonstrated the trial court’s instruction did not affect the jury’s verdict.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting plaintiffs’ doctor-witness to testify as an expert where Evid.R. 601(B)(5)(b), as amended in July 2023, applied.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiff’s motion for past medical expenses where the plaintiff’s health insurer had a subrogation agreement under which the insurer would collect the medical expenses it paid on plaintiff’s behalf from plaintiff’s damages.
The trial court did not err by denying defendants’ motion in the alternative for a new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A).
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. BEARD
APPEAL NO.: C-240388
TRIAL NO.: B-2106212
KEY WORDS: RAPE — R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) — SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — SUFFICIENCY — KNOWLEDGE — SIXTH AMENDMENT — VINDICTIVE SENTENCE
SUMMARY: The State’s evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant knew the victim was substantially impaired as an element of rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) where testimony described the victim’s instability on her feet, heaving, and vomiting near defendant after drinking alcohol with defendant earlier in the night.
Defendant’s conviction for rape and the jury’s finding that the victim was substantially impaired are not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury believed testimony from witnesses and the victim describing her condition, which indicated that alcohol had impaired the victim’s ability to apprise the nature of her conduct and consent to sexual intercourse.
Defendant’s sentence is contrary to law where the trial court’s repeated condemnatory remarks at the sentencing hearing about defendant’s not-guilty plea and decision to have a jury trial suggest that defendant received the maximum penalty for exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, SENTENCE VACATED, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.