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, July 5, 2024
CAPTION: STATE V. JOHNSON
APPEAL NO.: C-230373
TRIAL NO.: B-1602422
KEY WORDS: POSTCONVICTION — FALSE OR MISLEADING EVIDENCE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
SUMMARY: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief where its decision was supported by competent, credible evidence.
Defendant did not demonstrate that the state had knowledge of any misleading or false evidence presented by its fingerprint expert or that the testimony of the state’s expert was false or misleading where the expert acknowledged that the feature-comparison method used to analyze fingerprint evidence required subjective determinations, did not profess to be absolutely certain when identifying defendant’s print to the jury, and supported her identification with observable data.
Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel and his performance was not deficient by not requesting a jury instruction on error rates in fingerprint identification where relatively few studies have been performed in this new and developing area of research.
Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel and his performance was not deficient where counsel’s decision to refrain from cross-examining the state’s fingerprint expert on certain reports and guidelines published by forensic organizations was reasonable in light of the expert’s prior testimony that she was unfamiliar with the documents and where there was no other witness to contextualize why the expert’s unfamiliarity with those documents was problematic.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY J.; BERGERON, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: BADER V. TEPE
APPEAL NO.: C-230584
TRIAL NO.: 20CV-17601
KEY WORDS: EVICTION – ATTORNEY FEES – DAMAGES – RES JUDICATA –SECURITY DEPOSIT – RETALIATION
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in considering tenants claim for retaliation because the claim was not barred by res judicata where tenants raised the claim in their counterclaim and the claim was not adjudicated in the eviction hearing.
The trial court did not err in awarding tenants double damages and attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 5321.16 where landlord wrongfully withheld a portion of tenants’ security deposit and retaliated against tenants for filing a complaint with the health department.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. JUSTICE
APPEAL NO.: C-230591
TRIAL NOS.: C-23TRD-24768-A, B
KEY WORDS: TESTIMONY – ADMISSIBILITY – HEARSAY – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – FICTITIOUS LICENSE PLATES
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for displaying fictitious license plates was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where computer inquiries established that the license plate displayed on his vehicle belonged to another motor vehicle.
The admission of the officer’s testimony, based on his recollection of the results of computer inquiries, constituted plain error because the testimony was inadmissible hearsay, offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and the sole evidence supporting the conviction.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED IN PART AND CAUSE REMANDED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; CROUSE and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. CORRADO
APPEAL NOS.: C-230635, C-230636
TRIAL NOS.: 23CRB-17796, 23CRB-16870
KEY WORDS: EVIDENCE – SELF-DEFENSE – SENTENCING – ALLIED OFFENSES
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err under Evid.R. 404(B) in admitting evidence of defendant’s other acts prior to his assault of the victim where the other acts constituted the immediate background of the assault in question and where the acts were relevant to whether defendant acted in self-defense.
The trial court did not err in concluding that defendant did not meet his burden of production regarding his self-defense argument where defendant did not produce legally sufficient evidence that would allow a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of a self-defense claim.
The trial court erred in failing to merge two allied offenses of similar import where the offenses arose from the same conduct of defendant and where the court nonetheless imposed individual sentences for each of the two offenses and failed to allow the state to elect on which offense it wished to pursue sentencing.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, J.; BOCK, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., CONCUR.