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, September 10, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. JONES
APPEAL NO.: C-240533
TRIAL NO.: B-2204213
KEY WORDS: ROBBERY — R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) — DEADLY WEAPON — EVID.R. 404(B) — BODY-WORN-CAMERA VIDEO – PLAIN ERROR – MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: When statements on the police officer’s body-worn-camera video indicating that the robbery defendant had committed other theft offenses were muted at trial but inadvertently sent to the jury for deliberations, no plain error occurred because the statements would not have changed the outcome of the trial.
Defendant’s conviction for robbery was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the record shows that he used a knife recovered by Cincinnati police officers as he stole goods from the store.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; KINSLEY P.J., and ZAYAS, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: G.T.
APPEAL NOS.: C-240546, C-240547
TRIAL NOS.: 23/492-01 Z, 24/508-01 Z
KEY WORDS: JUVENILE — SENTENCING
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in committing the juvenile to the Ohio Department of Youth Services where the court did not base its decision on an incorrect statement of the dispositional alternatives under R.C. 2152.19: The court narrowed down the options in the juvenile’s case to commitment or out-of-state probation, and it properly chose commitment.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing the juvenile to the Ohio Department of Youth Services instead of alternative dispositional options.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; ZAYAS P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. MCCOLLUM
APPEAL NO.: C-250051
TRIAL NO.: C/24/CRB/11945
KEY WORDS: AGGRAVATED MENACING — MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for aggravated menacing was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court was aware of the witnesses’ close relationships to one another and, nonetheless, found their testimony to be credible.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; CROUSE and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. HOWELL
APPEAL NO.: C-250106
TRIAL NOS.: 24/TRC/26169/A/B
KEY WORDS: MOTION TO SUPPRESS — OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE INTOXICATED — OPERATION — PROBABLE CAUSE — CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SUMMARY: Because the State may prove operation of a motor vehicle through circumstantial evidence, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress her arrest for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated for lack of probable cause that defendant had operated the vehicle where defendant admitted she was coming from Columbus, attempted to locate her driver’s license in the car, and was the only person standing near the car when the officer arrived.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; CROUSE and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.