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, March 29, 2024

CAPTION: STATE V. COFFMAN

APPEAL NO: C-230411

TRIAL NO: 23CRB-7133

KEY WORDS: OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS – EVIDENCE – PURPOSELY – SUBSTANTIAL STOPPAGE – MOOTNESS

SUMMARY: Defendant’s obstruction-of-official-business conviction under R.C. 2921.31 was not supported by sufficient evidence because defendant did not create a “substantial stoppage” in the police officer’s investigation where the delay caused by defendant’s behavior lasted approximately 20 seconds, and the state provided no evidence of defendant’s hampering or impeding the investigation beyond that de minimis delay. [But see DISSENT: The cause is moot because defendant completed the sentence prior to filing the appeal, defendant did not demonstrate anything to indicate he served the sentence involuntarily, and defendant already suffers the collateral disabilities of a misdemeanor conviction for obstruction of official business.]

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED

JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; KINSLEY, J., CONCURS and WINKLER, J., DISSENTS.

 

CAPTION: IN RE: DE.R., DI.R., AND DA.R. 

APPEAL NO.: C-230685

TRIAL NO.: F08-566X

KEY WORDS: JUVENILE – PLAIN ERROR – EVIDENCE – LAY TESTIMONY – REASONABLE EFFORTS – PERMANENT CUSTODY – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – BEST INTEREST – R.C. 2151.413

SUMMARY: The juvenile court’s admission of expert testimony by a lay witness was not plain error when the testimony largely overlapped with other admitted evidence.

The juvenile court’s removal of Mother’s youngest child was not plain error when Mother stipulated to interim custody, and there is no evidence that her stipulation was not knowing and voluntary.

The magistrate’s finding that the agency made reasonable efforts toward reunification was not plain error when the agency provided Mother with services, and Mother had difficulty engaging with services due to two periods of incarceration.

The juvenile court properly granted permanent custody to the agency when clear and convincing evidence supported its finding that a grant of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was in the best interest of the children.

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, J.; BOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.