Sunday, April 21, 2024
Volume 131, Number 137

Call Us Today! 513-241-1450

Select Issue Date

1st District Court of Appeals Summaries

Print April 2, 2024 First District Court of Appeals Summaries
 
 
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. 
 
Requires Adobe Reader 10+ Sunscribe Now

Cincinnati Weather

Cincinnati Stocks