tenth assignment error in Ohio

2024Robinson, 2013-Ohio-4375, ¶ 102-103 .

2021Robinson, 2013-Ohio-4375, ¶ 102-103 .

2006Although the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that numerous harmless errors may cumulatively deprive a defendant of a fair trial and thus may warrant the reversal of his conviction, State v. DeMarco (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 191 , 509 N.E.2d 1256 , paragraph two of the syllabus, upon a complete review of the record, we cannot conclude that prejudicial error exists in this case. {¶ 115} The tenth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 116} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

2006Although the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that numerous harmless errors may cumulatively deprive a defendant of a fair trial and thus may warrant the reversal of his conviction, State v. DeMarco (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 191 , 509 N.E.2d 1256 , paragraph two of the syllabus, upon a complete review of the record, we cannot conclude that prejudicial error exists in this case. {¶ 115} The tenth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 116} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

2023Putnam Nos. 12-16-15 and 12-16-16, 2017-Ohio-2920, ¶ 8 , quoting State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1 .

2023Putnam Nos. 12-16-15 and 12-16-16, 2017-Ohio-2920, ¶ 8 , quoting State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1 .

2011X {¶ 81} The tenth assignment of error is that cumulative errors deprived Warmus of a right to a fair trial. {¶ 82} The cumulative-error doctrine states that “a conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of the numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 49 , 64, 656 N.E.2d 623 .

2009The tenth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 33} The final assignment of error alleges that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived Hupp of a fair trial. "[A] conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal." State v. Garner (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 49 , 64 , 656 N.E.2d 623 .

2023Putnam Nos. 12-16-15 and 12-16-16, 2017-Ohio-2920, ¶ 8 , quoting State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1 .

2021App.R. 12(A)(1)(c) states that “[u]nless an assignment of error is made moot by a ruling on another assignment of error,” a court of appeals shall “decide each assignment of error and give reasons in writing for its decision.” An assignment of error is moot when it cannot have ‘“any practical legal effect upon a then-existing controversy.”’ State v. Gideon, Slip Opinion No. 2019-1104, 2020- Ohio-5635, ¶ 26, quoting Culver v. Warren, 84 Ohio App. 373, 393 , 83 N.E.2d 82 (11th Dist.1948), quoting Ex parte Steele, 162 F. 694, 701 (N.D.Ala.1908).

2021App.R. 12(A)(1)(c) states that “[u]nless an assignment of error is made moot by a ruling on another assignment of error,” a court of appeals shall “decide each assignment of error and give reasons in writing for its decision.” An assignment of error is moot when it cannot have ‘“any practical legal effect upon a then-existing controversy.”’ State v. Gideon, Slip Opinion No. 2019-1104, 2020- Ohio-5635, ¶ 26, quoting Culver v. Warren, 84 Ohio App. 373, 393 , 83 N.E.2d 82 (11th Dist.1948), quoting Ex parte Steele, 162 F. 694, 701 (N.D.Ala.1908).

2018Cuyahoga No. 96653, 2011-Ohio-6755, ¶ 19 . {¶93} The tenth assignment of error is overruled. {¶94} Judgment is affirmed.

2017Appellee 23. contends double jeopardy does not attach because Ohio law does not recognize inconsistent verdicts. {¶ 82} The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 793 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 707 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 (1969) (incorporating double jeopardy clause against the states).

2017Appellee 23. contends double jeopardy does not attach because Ohio law does not recognize inconsistent verdicts. {¶ 82} The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 793 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 707 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 (1969) (incorporating double jeopardy clause against the states).

2015Cuyahoga No. 97971, 2013-Ohio-1338, ¶ 49 , citing R.C. 3119.03.

2013Cuyahoga Nos. 86375 and 86939, 2006-Ohio-3324, ¶ 7-8 . {¶91} Under the circumstances presented in this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s judgment ordering Mother to pay half the guardian ad litem fees, half the guardian ad litem’s attorney fees, and all of the expert fees “in the nature of child support,” even though the court did not make a modified child support worksheet part of the record. {¶92} The tenth assignment of error is overruled.

2012“The touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” 29 Id., quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982).

2012“The touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” 29 Id., quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982).

2012“A criminal defendant has a right to expect that the trial court will give complete jury instructions on all issues raised by the evidence.” State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 251 , (1990).

2012Based on this statement, Jackson likely suffered no prejudice as a result of the court’s finding that the State was surprised by the change in Horn’s testimony; if such a change had been anticipated, it appears that the court would have allowed the State to pursue similar questioning by cross-examining Horn as a court’s witness, pursuant to Evid.R. 614(A). {¶ 86} The tenth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 87} Jackson’s eleventh assignment of error states: APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. {¶ 88} Jackson claims that the prosecutor engaged in

2012Based on this statement, Jackson likely suffered no prejudice as a result of the court’s finding that the State was surprised by the change in Horn’s testimony; if such a change had been anticipated, it appears that the court would have allowed the State to pursue similar questioning by cross-examining Horn as a court’s witness, pursuant to Evid.R. 614(A). {¶ 86} The tenth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 87} Jackson’s eleventh assignment of error states: APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. {¶ 88} Jackson claims that the prosecutor engaged in

2011However, “ ‘[t]here can be no such thing as an error-free, perfect trial, and * * * the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial.’ ” State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 212, 661 N.E.2d 1068 , quoting United States v. Hasting (1983), 461 U.S. 499, 508-509 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 . {¶ 83} As we have previously discussed, the only demonstrable errors we have found to this point are the court’s decision to allow an audio expert to testify to his interpretation of words spoken on an audio recording of a 9-1-1 call, the state’s misconduct in questioning Warmus about the illegal tr

2011However, “ ‘[t]here can be no such thing as an error-free, perfect trial, and * * * the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial.’ ” State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 212, 661 N.E.2d 1068 , quoting United States v. Hasting (1983), 461 U.S. 499, 508-509 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 . {¶ 83} As we have previously discussed, the only demonstrable errors we have found to this point are the court’s decision to allow an audio expert to testify to his interpretation of words spoken on an audio recording of a 9-1-1 call, the state’s misconduct in questioning Warmus about the illegal tr

2011Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 400 N.E.2d 384 . {¶53} The tenth assignment of error is overruled.

2011Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 400 N.E.2d 384 . {¶53} The tenth assignment of error is overruled.

2011However, “ ‘[t]here can be no such thing as an error-free, perfect trial, and * * * the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial.’ ” State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 212, 661 N.E.2d 1068 , quoting United States v. Hasting (1983), 461 U.S. 499, 508-509 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 . {¶ 83} As we have previously discussed, the only demonstrable errors we have found to this point are the court’s decision to allow an audio expert to testify to his interpretation of words spoken on an audio recording of a 9-1-1 call, the state’s misconduct in questioning Warmus about the illegal tr

2011However, “ ‘[t]here can be no such thing as an error-free, perfect trial, and * * * the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial.’ ” State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 212, 661 N.E.2d 1068 , quoting United States v. Hasting (1983), 461 U.S. 499, 508-509 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 . {¶ 83} As we have previously discussed, the only demonstrable errors we have found to this point are the court’s decision to allow an audio expert to testify to his interpretation of words spoken on an audio recording of a 9-1-1 call, the state’s misconduct in questioning Warmus about the illegal tr

2009Although he did not raise this issue below, Carr cites State v. Colon , 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 , for the proposition that it may be raised for the first time on appeal. {¶ 66} Upon review, we find no merit in Carr's argument.

2009R. 31(A), the Richardson court stated that a jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a particular element, say, which of several possible means the defendant used to commit an element of *Page 26 the crime.'" State v. Gardner , 118 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-2787 , 889 N.E.2d 995 , ¶ 38. {¶ 93} Based upon the above authority, the tenth assignment of error is overruled.

2008No. 2005-CA-09, 2005-Ohio-7066 , at ¶ 28 (the parties' inability to communicate or cooperate demonstrated shared parenting was not in the children's best interest). {¶ 100} The ninth assignment of error is without merit. {¶ 101} In the tenth assignment of error, John argues the trial court erred by requiring him to pay spousal support through October 2005 and by not reducing the monthly support obligation as recommended by the magistrate. {¶ 102} As noted above, John was ordered to make monthly spousal support payments of $1,600 beginning in June 2000.

2008In making an award regarding spousal support, "the trial court must indicate the basis for its award in sufficient detail to enable a reviewing court to determine that the award is fair, equitable and in accordance with the law." Kaechele v. Kaechele (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 93 , at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 137} In the present case, the trial court's reasoning for terminating spousal support was set forth above under the tenth assignment of error: the prolonged period of time in which John was required to pay support at the rate of $1,000 per month after his unemployment and motion to th

2008No. 2007AP030024, 2007-Ohio-6568 , ¶ 11 (recognizing that the trial court's final decision on custody superseded the temporary order, thereby rendering the temporary decision moot). {¶ 40} Likewise, we decline to reach the merits of the mother's tenth assignment of error in which she claims that the trial court erred in denying her motion to stay because one of the visiting judges, who presided over the case prior to the custody trial, was not properly appointed.

2008The child support computation worksheet provides for an adjustment to a parent's "annual support obligation" for "[m]arginal, out-of-pocket costs, necessary to provide for health insurance for the children who are the subject of this order." R.C. 3119.022 . {¶ 114} The terms of the child support computation worksheet "are mandatory in nature and must be followed literally and technically in all material respects." Marker v. Grimm (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 139 , at paragraph two of the syllabus.

2006Assignment of Error No. X {¶ 53} In the tenth assignment of error, Appellants assert that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for their claims of negligent retention and supervision against the City. {¶ 54} In order to prove a claim for negligent supervision and retention, Appellants must show the following: "(1) the existence of an employment relationship; (2) the employee's incompetence; (3) the employer's actual or constructive knowledge of such incompetence; (4) the employee's act or omission causing plaintiff's injuries; and (5) the employer's negligence in * * * retaining

2006State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2004-Ohio-6085 . {¶ 65} Hamilton's eleventh assignment of error is sustained. {¶ 66} In his tenth assignment of error, Hamilton argues that "defendant was denied due process of law when the court refused to declare the Ohio Repeat Violent Offender statute unconstitutional." {¶ 67} Because Hamilton was not sentenced under the enhancement provision of the repeat violent offender statute, this assignment of error is moot. {¶ 68} In his ninth assignment of error, Hamilton argues that "defendant was denied due process of law when he was sentenced to more than a

2005Although he acknowledges that such statements were initiated by his counsel and followed by the State, he contends that such comments constitute plain error and require a new trial pursuant to the recent decision of the Ninth District Court of Appeals in State v. Attalla, 157 Ohio App.3d 698 , 2004-Ohio-3414 .

2005Although he acknowledges that such statements were initiated by his counsel and followed by the State, he contends that such comments constitute plain error and require a new trial pursuant to the recent decision of the Ninth District Court of Appeals in State v. Attalla, 157 Ohio App.3d 698 , 2004-Ohio-3414 .

2003Therefore, plain error is inapplicable. {¶ 120} The tenth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 121} The eleventh assignment of error states: "Defendant Was Denied Due Process Of Law When The Court Overruled Defendant's Motion For Judgment Of Acquittal." {¶ 122} This assignment argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. {¶ 123} In analyzing an argument alleging insufficiency of the evidence we are guided by the following: {¶ 124} "In a test for sufficiency, `the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution

2003Therefore, plain error is inapplicable. {¶ 120} The tenth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 121} The eleventh assignment of error states: "Defendant Was Denied Due Process Of Law When The Court Overruled Defendant's Motion For Judgment Of Acquittal." {¶ 122} This assignment argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. {¶ 123} In analyzing an argument alleging insufficiency of the evidence we are guided by the following: {¶ 124} "In a test for sufficiency, `the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution