exhibit hearing in Ohio

2023See In re Disqualification of Zmuda, 149 Ohio St.3d 1241 , 2017-Ohio-317 , 75 N.E.3d 1255, ¶ 11 (although an affidavit of disqualification is within exclusive jurisdiction of the chief justice, a criminal defendant can raise a due process argument to the appellate court on a biased judge). {¶36} The father begins by complaining about the magistrate’s observation that he “parsed every word of Local Rule 9.4 in an effort to gain even a small advantage.” Evidence supporting this observation existed in the history of the case and was presented by the mother as an exhibit at this hearing.

2023See In re Disqualification of Zmuda, 149 Ohio St.3d 1241 , 2017-Ohio-317 , 75 N.E.3d 1255, ¶ 11 (although an affidavit of disqualification is within exclusive jurisdiction of the chief justice, a criminal defendant can raise a due process argument to the appellate court on a biased judge). {¶36} The father begins by complaining about the magistrate’s observation that he “parsed every word of Local Rule 9.4 in an effort to gain even a small advantage.” Evidence supporting this observation existed in the history of the case and was presented by the mother as an exhibit at this hearing.

2023See In re Disqualification of Zmuda, 149 Ohio St.3d 1241 , 2017-Ohio-317 , 75 N.E.3d 1255, ¶ 11 (although an affidavit of disqualification is within exclusive jurisdiction of the chief justice, a criminal defendant can raise a due process argument to the appellate court on a biased judge). {¶36} The father begins by complaining about the magistrate’s observation that he “parsed every word of Local Rule 9.4 in an effort to gain even a small advantage.” Evidence supporting this observation existed in the history of the case and was presented by the mother as an exhibit at this hearing.

2022The State, on the other hand, contends that while the admission of the exhibit was an error, it did not change the outcome for Sutherland. {¶ 18} “Mistrials need to be declared only when the ends of justice so require, and a fair trial is no longer possible.” State v. Patterson, 188 Ohio App.3d 292 , 2010-Ohio- 2012, 935 N.E.2d 439, ¶ 69 (2d Dist.).

2022The State, on the other hand, contends that while the admission of the exhibit was an error, it did not change the outcome for Sutherland. {¶ 18} “Mistrials need to be declared only when the ends of justice so require, and a fair trial is no longer possible.” State v. Patterson, 188 Ohio App.3d 292 , 2010-Ohio- 2012, 935 N.E.2d 439, ¶ 69 (2d Dist.).

2004See, also, State v. Fahy (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 160 , 551 N.E.2d 1311 (holding that “[p]olice may not search persons based solely on their reputation as drug users and their ambiguous movements at the trunk of a car”). {¶ 21} Here, when viewing the totality of the circumstances, we do not believe that sufficient articulable facts existed to constitutionally justify the stop.

2004See, also, State v. Fahy (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 160 , 551 N.E.2d 1311 (holding that “[p]olice may not search persons based solely on their reputation as drug users and their ambiguous movements at the trunk of a car”). {¶ 21} Here, when viewing the totality of the circumstances, we do not believe that sufficient articulable facts existed to constitutionally justify the stop.

2000In Helton , we made clear that the transcript or affidavit "must be properly of record, which means either filed before the hearing on objections to the court, or offered as an exhibit at the hearing on objections." Helton , supra , at 736-737, 658 N.E.2d at 3 (emphasis supplied).