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, June 25, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. WILCOX
APPEAL NO.: C-220472
TRIAL NO.: B-2004192
KEY WORDS: MURDER – HEARSAY – EXCITED UTTERANCE – PRESENT-SENSE IMPRESSION – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – SELF-DEFENSE – SENTENCING
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err when it admitted certain statements made by a nontestifying witness in a body-worn camera video, and its admission of inadmissible statements made in the same body-worn camera video constituted harmless error, because there was ample other evidence supporting the jury’s guilty verdict.
Defendant’s murder conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because evidence showed that his version of the events was inconsistent with the video evidence and other witness testimony.
Defendant did not show that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he failed to show how his trial counsel’s performance was prejudicial to his defense.
Defendant did not demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to include his requested jury instruction, because the trial court’s instructions already specified that he did not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.
Defendant did not show that the trial court erred when it sentenced him to consecutive sentences, as its decision to do so was not clearly and convincingly contrary to the record or to the law.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: GIPSON V. MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM OF SOUTHWEST OHIO
APPEAL NO.: C-240363
TRIAL NO.: A-2302862
KEY WORDS: COVID-19 — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — TIMELINESS — MOTION TO STRIKE – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
SUMMARY: The trial court properly struck plaintiff’s expert affidavit where it was filed after the deadline, which was set with her agreement, for filing a response to defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment.
Where the only material filed by plaintiff in response to defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment was properly stricken by the trial court, the court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment because plaintiff could not show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. GERALDS
APPEAL NO.: C-240512
TRIAL NO.: B-2304290
KEY WORDS: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — WEAPONS WHILE UNDER A DISABILITY — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of the warrantless search where the record contains no evidence which would justify the filing of a motion to suppress.
Defendant’s conviction for having weapons while under a disability was supported by sufficient evidence where the firearm was located in a dresser drawer in defendant’s bedroom and defendant acknowledged the presence of the firearm for protection.
Defendant’s conviction for having weapons while under a disability was not against the weight of the evidence where defendant admitted that he was aware of the firearm concealed in the dresser drawer.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: porter v. hammond North Condominium Assn.
APPEAL Nos.: C-240571, C-240572
TRIAL Nos.: a-2401841, A-2402299, A-2402872
KEY WORDS: right to jury trial – civil procedure – condominium associations – real covenants – bifurcation – equitable relief – appellate jurisdiction – R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) – Civ.R. 54(B)
SUMMARY: The court of appeals had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a trial court’s order, where the trial court resolved one or more complete claims for relief and did not abuse its discretion in certifying its order as a final judgment under Civ.R. 54(B).
Because a claim for damages against a condominium owners association for breach of the condominium’s declarations and by-laws is in the nature of a suit for breach of a real covenant in a deed, and because actions in covenant were tried to a jury at common law, the Ohio Constitution preserves the right to a jury trial in damages actions for breach of a condominium’s declarations and bylaws.
Where appellants had multiple claims that shared disputed issues of fact, and where appellants were entitled to a jury trial on some of the claims but not others, the trial court erred and denied appellants their rights to a jury trial by resolving disputed factual issues underpinning both claims following a bench trial.
JUDGMENT: reversed and cause remanded
JUDGES: OPINION by Crouse, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. CRAGWELL
APPEAL NO.: C-240640
TRIAL NO.: B-2302358
KEY WORDS: SENTENCING — MAXIMUM SENTENCE — DUE PROCESS
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err by imposing a maximum sentence where the court received and reviewed a presentence investigation report, reviewed defendant’s extensive criminal history, and imposed a sentence within the statutory range for a third-degree felony.
Defendant was not deprived of her due-process rights during the sentencing hearing where defendant did not develop a due-process argument and the record does not suggest that any due-process violations occurred that undermined the integrity of the proceedings.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: T.B. AND G.B.
APPEAL NO.: C-250161
TRIAL NO.: F/21/298 X
KEY WORDS: PERMANENT CUSTODY — R.C. 2151.414 — BEST INTEREST — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT
SUMMARY: Where Mother failed to remedy the concerns of the children services agency regarding her mental health, struggled with alcohol abuse, lacked stable housing, and was inconsistent in her visitation with the children, the trial court’s determination that a grant of permanent custody of Mother’s children to the agency was in the children’s best interest was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, P.J.; NESTOR and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.