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, Janaury 10, 2025
CAPTION: state v. hahaj
APPEAL No.: C-240033
TRIAL No.: c/23/crb/5114/A
KEY WORDS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – PREINDICTMENT DELAY – DUE PROCESS – DUE COURSE OF LAW – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – DE NOVO – STANDARD OF REVIEW – ACTUAL PREJUDICE – MOTION TO DISMISS
SUMMARY: The appellate court does not review the trial court’s dismissal of an indictment based on preindictment delay for an abuse of discretion, but should instead defer to the trial court’s factual determinations and inferences where supported by competent, credible evidence, while reviewing de novo its legal conclusions and application of the relevant legal standard to the facts.
Defendant did not meet her burden of showing actual prejudice from the State’s preindictment delay, where defendant failed to demonstrate how particular lost evidence and unavailable witnesses could have minimized the impact of the State’s evidence or otherwise bolstered her defense.
JUDGMENT: reversed and cause remanded
JUDGES: OPINION by Crouse, J.; BERGERON, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. RODRIGUEZ
APPEAL NO.: C-240075
TRIAL NO.: B-2200636-A
KEY WORDS: JURY INSTRUCTIONS — VERDICT FORMS — PLAIN ERROR — ENDANGERING CHILDREN — DOUBLE JEOPARDY
SUMMARY: Where defendant was charged with multiple counts of the same offense against the same victim, the jury demonstrated confusion as to which conduct on the part of defendant applied to each count, and defendant was convicted of some counts and acquitted of others, the trial court committed plain error when it failed to provide the jury with final instructions and/or verdict forms that specified which conduct was the basis of each count.
Where it is unclear which acts were included in the jury’s verdicts of acquittal, and it is not possible to eliminate the possibility that defendant would be retried for an offense upon which she has already been acquitted, the trial court’s judgment convicting defendant of various counts of child endangering must be reversed and defendant discharged. [But see DISSENT: Because Ohio law does not require a trial court to include a defendant’s alleged conduct in the jury instructions or in the verdict forms in order to differentiate counts of the indictment, and because the State’s closing argument included a count-by-count reiteration of defendant’s conduct for the jury, the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to include defendant’s alleged conduct in the jury instructions or the verdict forms.]
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; BERGERON, P.J., CONCURS and WINKLER, J., DISSENTS.