discussion standard in Ohio

2022State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio- 4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio- 2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Carducci v. Ryan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C.

2022State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio- 4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio- 2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Carducci v. Ryan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C.

2026Part of the discussion at her hearing about her reason for seeking sealing was marked on the transcript as “indiscernible.” But according to the trial court, J.B. said she did not want to “‘explain every single time’ her criminal record as she moves forward in her career.” The trial court’s determination that this 10 January Term, 2026 interest was entitled to less weight than the government’s interest was not “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable,” Beasley, 2018-Ohio-16, at ¶ 12 .

2026State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-2804, ¶ 30 .

2015“It is well settled that this court will not reach constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary.” State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 , 2004-Ohio-4888 , 814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 9 ; see also Ohioans for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Taft, 67 Ohio St.3d 180, 183 , 616 N.E.2d 905 (1993), quoting Hall China Co. v. Pub.

2015“It is well settled that this court will not reach constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary.” State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 , 2004-Ohio-4888 , 814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 9 ; see also Ohioans for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Taft, 67 Ohio St.3d 180, 183 , 616 N.E.2d 905 (1993), quoting Hall China Co. v. Pub.

2015Cuyahoga No. 100877, 2014-Ohio-5137, ¶ 29-39 , discretionary appeal not allowed, State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.3d 1465 , 2015-Ohio-1896 , 30 N.E.3d 974 (for a full discussion and analysis on this issue).

2013Cuyahoga No. 97219, 2012-Ohio-1199, ¶ 20 , we held that when the transcript demonstrates the state and defense counsel agreed that the offenses were not allied, the issue of allied offenses is waived.

2010In State v. Boston (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 117 , the Supreme Court of Ohio quoted Potter v. Baker (1955), 162 Ohio St. 488 , at 500: {¶69} “‘ * * * [W]e believe that the decision of the trial judge, in determining whether or not a declaration should be admissible under the spontaneous exclamations exception to the hearsay rule [excited utterance], should be sustained where such decision appears to be a reasonable one, even though the reviewing court, if sitting as a trial court, would have made a different decision. * * * ’” {¶70} Thus, an abuse of discretion standard of review applies.

2010Standard of Review {¶18} Our review of a grant of permanent custody begins by noting that “[i]t is well recognized that the right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re Hayes (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 , citing In re Murray (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 .

2010Standard of Review {¶18} Our review of a grant of permanent custody begins by noting that “[i]t is well recognized that the right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil right.” In re Hayes (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 , citing In re Murray (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 .

2008(Tr. 569.) The trial judge told the jury commissioner he would deal with the situation "when the other lawyers are present along with the court reporter." Id.

2006See Strickland, supra; Bradley, supra. Appellant has therefore failed to establish the second prong of the Strickland test.

2006Therefore, I find that the defendant is a sexual predator." {¶ 29} It is quite apparent that the trial court did little more than adopt Dr. Dyer's testimony as to those factors that in her judgment increased the risk of recidivism, and further observed that McKenzie had fulfilled the "likelihood" component of the sexual predator definition by actually committing another sexually oriented offense after having recently pleaded guilty to two such offenses. {¶ 30} Bearing in mind that the discussion requirement imposed upon trial courts by Eppinger is to "aid appellate courts in reviewing the evid

2004Jeffers v. Olexo (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 140 , 142 .

1988The two United States Supreme Court cases referred to are Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , and Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410 .

1988The two United States Supreme Court cases referred to are Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , and Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410 .

1978The Ohio Legislative Service Commission Staff Research Report No. 75, Problems of Judicial Administration (1965), states, at page 76, as to the changes in Section 6, Article IV, the following: “This section ;is substantially rewritten .to .clarify its. provisions; there,;are ¿no major, substantive changes.” A discussion and analysis of this court’s decisions iñ the Zangerle, supra, and Fortner, supra, line of cases is found in Note, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions in Ohio, 34 Ohio St.

1978For a discussion of exception to the rule see Richmond Homes, Inc. v. Lee-Mar, Inc. (1969), 20 Ohio App. 2d 27, 31-21 . 3 P.E., absent an exceptional circumstance such as fraud.

1961For a discussion of the presumption of freedom from neg *564 ligence on the part of the defendant, see Doering v. Cleveland, 65 Ohio Law Abs., 257 .

1951For those who may be interested, attention is directed to 57 American Jurisprudence, 669, Section 1033; 69 Corpus Juris, 905, Wills, Section 2071 et seq.; 4 Page on Wills (Lifetime Ed.), 607, Section 1613; and In re Hughes, 78 Ohio App., 143 , 69 N. E. (2d), 216 (motion to certify overruled), where the leading cases dealing with the subject are cited.

1906Thompson v. Lambert, 44 Iowa, 239 ; Sheldon v. Eickemeyer, 90 N. Y., 607 ; Stokes v. Detrick, 75 Md., 256 ; Thompson on Corporations, sec. 4534; Noyes Intercorp.

1906Thompson v. Lambert , 44 Iowa 239 ; Sheldon v. Eickemeyer , 90 N.Y. 607 ; Stokes v. Detrick , 75 Md. 256 ; Thompson on Corporations, sec. 4534; Noyes Intercorp.

1906Thompson v. Lambert, 44 Iowa, 239 ; Sheldon v. Eickemeyer, 90 N. Y., 607 ; Stokes v. Detrick, 75 Md., 256 ; Thompson on Corporations, sec. 4534; Noyes Intercorp.

1906Thompson v. Lambert , 44 Iowa 239 ; Sheldon v. Eickemeyer , 90 N.Y. 607 ; Stokes v. Detrick , 75 Md. 256 ; Thompson on Corporations, sec. 4534; Noyes Intercorp.

1906Thompson v. Lambert, 44 Iowa, 239 ; Sheldon v. Eickemeyer, 90 N. Y., 607 ; Stokes v. Detrick, 75 Md., 256 ; Thompson on Corporations, sec. 4534; Noyes Intercorp.

1906Thompson v. Lambert , 44 Iowa 239 ; Sheldon v. Eickemeyer , 90 N.Y. 607 ; Stokes v. Detrick , 75 Md. 256 ; Thompson on Corporations, sec. 4534; Noyes Intercorp.