News & Events

Fifth District Summary for the week of 5/24/10 includes seven criminal decisions.  If you haven’t figured it out by now, we don't summarize the civil cases.  Sue me.

State v. King is an appeal from Guernsey County Common Pleas Court.  King was indicted for two counts of involuntary manslaughter (F1) with felonious assault and child endangerment as the underlying felonies, one court of involuntary manslaughter (F3) with assault as the underlying offense, one count of child endangerment (F3) and one count of felonious assault (F2).  King was convicted of Child Endangerment (F3), acquitted on Involuntary Manslaughter with Felonious Assault as the underlying charge and the jury hung on the remaining charges.  The Court overrules a sufficiency of evidence assignment of error.  It is interesting the Child Endangering conviction stands; the Fifth basically says if your child might be sick, you better take him to the hospital or else it is child endangering.  The Court also shoots down an argument claiming inconsistency in the verdicts.

State v. Morris is an appeal from denial of Morris's application to seal the record of his conviction in the Licking County Common Pleas Court.  Morris claims his prior conviction for OVI in another state should not preclude him from have his felony vandalism conviction sealed.  It does.

From Perry County Common Pleas Court comes State v. Chatfield.  Chatfield isn't happy that his attorney's oral motion for a continuance to further investigate the case was denied and claims the trial court erred when it refused his request for a mistrial.  A continuance being in the sound discretion of the trial court, Chatfield’s assigned error is overruled.  The denial of a motion for mistrial is also reviewed for abuse of discretion.  In this case, a mistrial was requested when 404(B) evidence was introduced; the 404(B) evidence was appropriate and probative of modus operandi.  Enjoy your 84 months Mr. Chatfield.

State v. Bloom assigns error to the Fairfield County Municipal Court in a prosecution and conviction for OVI.  Mr. Bloom's Motion to Supress was denied and he entered a no contest plea.  The trial court believed the officer when he claimed Bloom drove over a curb, so the Court will too.  The motion was properly denied and the assignments of error are denied as well.

State v. Colon is an appeal alleging a denial of speedy trial rights from Stark County Common Pleas Court.  The trial court applied the tolling provisions of R.C. 2945.72 to the period permitted by R.C. 2941.401 and ruled Colon's failure to reply to the State's demand for discovery tolled time.  First, the Fifth finds the tolling provisions do apply and then further finds failure to respond to a discovery request is a tolling event.  The Court then does the math and says the plea took place on "day" 178.  Ouch.

State v. Cartier comes out of Delaware County Common Pleas Court.  Cartier claims his statutory speedy trial rights were violated.  Cartier doesn't get to use the triple-count provision of R.C. 2945.71 when filing a demand for disposition under 2941.401.  Creative argument, but the Fifth says no dice.

Finally, State v. Williamson comes from Canton Municipal Court.  Mr. Williamson's motion to suppress was denied and he appeals the denial after his no contest plea to Possession of Marijuana.  Williamson was the passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by officers who had been called to the scene because of "an altercation with a possible weapon involved."  Williamson has a handgun in the vehicle and he disclosed that as well as his carry conceal permit.  Both driver and passenger are removed from the vehicle.  Driver is placed face down on the ground in front of the vehicle and passenger (Williamson) is placed in a cruiser.  The officers find the gun (sans holster) and an empty holster under the passenger seat.  They then search the rest of the car and find a jacket; inside the jacket they find a baggie of marijuana.  The Fifth analyses SCOTUS precedent going back to Chimel v. California, determines the driver of the vehicle was not under arrest and had the ability to access the vehicle and therefore a search of the vehicle was necessary for officer safety.