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 28, 2024
CAPTION: STATE V. GREEN
APPEAL NO.: C-230551
TRIAL NO.: B-2300055
KEY WORDS: BRADY VIOLATION – MATERIALITY – PREJUDICE – ASSAULT – NEW TRIAL
SUMMARY:Defendant stated a meritorious Brady claim because the State failed to disclose a recorded statement of the sole eyewitness in which the witness disclosed bias against defendant and a motive to fabricate the allegations.
Defendant’s conviction for assault was based on sufficient evidence where a witness testified defendant, an employee at a group home, slapped a client who was functionally impaired in the face, causing the client to hunch down as if in pain.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; BOCK, P.J., and BERGERON, J, CONCUR
CAPTION: HILL V. SCHILDMEYER
APPEAL NO.: C-230570
TRIAL NO.: A-2203774
KEY WORDS: PROCEDURE/RULES – CIV.R. 12(C) – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS – JUDICIAL NOTICE – IMMUNITY – R.C. 2744.03 – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err when it struck video evidence defendant police officer had attached to his reply in support of his motion for judgment on the pleadings because the videos were not part of the pleadings; further, the trial court properly declined defendant’s invitation to take judicial notice of the video evidence where the contents of the videos were not “adjudicative facts” and thus, not an appropriate matter for which a court may take judicial notice.
The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings where plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the malice exception to government-employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), because plaintiff alleged his arrest and criminal charges by defendant police officer were racially motivated.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; ZAYAS and BERGERON, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. MARSHALL
APPEAL NO.: C-230664
TRIAL NO.: B-0506040A
KEY WORDS: DNA TESTING
SUMMARY: The trial court abused its discretion by failing to explain why it denied defendant’s application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 et seq.
JUDGMENT: CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and BERGERON, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. GILLIAM
APPEAL NO.: C-240153
TRIAL NO.: B-2301255
KEY WORDS: SENTENCING – R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) – REAGAN TOKES NOTIFICATIONS
SUMMARY:The trial court did not err by imposing a mandatory prison term for defendant’s felonious-assault conviction because R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) requires a prison term for the offense when the offender had a firearm on his person or under his control while committing the offense, and defendant pled guilty to having a firearm while committing the felonious assault.
The trial court erred by failing to advise defendant of certain Reagan Tokes Law notifications under R.C. 2919.19(B)(2)(c).
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; BOCK, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., CONCUR.