Video of Our Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court of Ohio

In one of our earlier posts, we notified you of the fact that we had an important case pending with the Supreme Court of Ohio. That case involved a dog mauling of a young girl. When that case went to trial, the trial court made us chose between 2 types of case presentation, which we believed was against the law. The Court of Appeals agreed with us (see the Court of Appeals decision), but the insurance carrier for the dog owners wanted to have the Supreme Court of Ohio hear the case. You can hear the September 30, 2009 oral arguments Michael O'Shea made at the Supreme Court of Ohio in Case No. 2008-2106 Yoshanta Beckett et al. v. Richard Warren et al. by clicking here. Give us some comments if you want.

Leaving Home Monitoring System Can Result in an Escape Charge

The Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals has just ruled that a if person is on electronic home detention (e.g. an electric ankle bracelet that monitors the location of a defendant) while on probation, and that person defies the geographical limitations of the bracelet or snaps-off/shuts-off the bracelet, that person can be charged with a separate and subsequent escape crime - even if that person was sent to jail for a probation violation. The defendant in State v. Peters, 2009 Ohio 5836 argued that, because the trial court had already sent him to prison for violating the electronic monitoring terms (i.e. ankle bracelet) of his probation, charging him with a separate and subsequent crime for the same conduct violated the "double jeopardy" clause of the Ohio and United States Constitution. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court held that (i) charging one for conduct which also resulted in a probation violation is not a violation of double jeopardy and (ii) a trial court is without authority to dismiss an indictment prior to trial because there is no legal mechanism (as there is in a civil case) for a court to do so. Suggestion, keep the ankle bracelet on and keep watching Oprah.

Mandatory Longer Sentence for DUI Breath Test Refusal Found Consitutional

In still another ruling on the ongoing debate about DUI sentencing statutes, the Supreme Court of Ohio recently ruled that the extra 10-day sentence mandated by Ohio law on those who (i) have a prior DUI conviction and (ii) refuse the breath test on a subsequent DUI arrest and conviction is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Ohio and United States Constitution. The defendant in State v. Hoover, 2009-Ohio-4993 alleged that the mandatory breath test required under Ohio DUI law violated his Constitutional right against "unreasonable searches and seizures" - a right protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Ohio and United States Constitution. However, in a narrow 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected that argument, holding that a series of decisions by the Court have already held that a defendant does not ever have a right to refuse a breath test, and, therefore, any increased in penalty for a refusal of the test cannot be unconstitutional. These prior holdings have all been based upon the idea that when a person requests and obtains an Ohio driver's license, that persons has consented to having their breath tested at any time they are arrested for a DUI. So if a person has a prior DUI conviction, and that person is subsequently arrested for another DUI and refuses a breath test, that person is facing (i) a 10-day sentence for a 2nd DUI and (ii) an ADDITIONAL 10-day sentence for refusing the test - for a total minimum sentence of 20 days. If that same person had consented to the test (and tested over the legal limit), they would only be facing a mandatory sentence of 10-days. A person with a prior DUI conviction has to really ponder whether refusing a breath test if arrested for a 2nd DUI is worth the extra penalty. Suggestion, consult with a lawyer as soon as you are confronted with this issue.

New Ohio Supreme Court Ruling on Expungements

The Supreme Court of Ohio has just issued an important ruling which clarifies some of the issues defendants and their lawyers are faced with when dealing with whether or not a defendant can obtain an expungement of multiple convictions stemming from a single event of criminal conduct. In State v. Futrall, 2009-Ohio-5590, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that if any of the criminal convictions stemming from the same series of events are barred from being expunged, then all of the separate convictions from that series of events cannot be expunged. For instance, if the defendant's course of conduct resulted in 4 separate convictions, if only one of those convictions is barred by statute from being expunged, then all of the convictions from that case are also barred from being expunged. Some types of convictions are barred by law from being expunged (for example, various crimes of violence and DUIs). If the defendant after a trial or as part of a plea negotiation is found guilty of one of these convictions, her/she cannot get any of what would otherwise be expungible convictions expunged. Thus, defendants and thier lawyers must be very cautious when considering this new ruling when deciding to go t trial or enter a plea - especially if that defendant has aspirations of getting that particular conviction(s) expunged in the future.

Spousal Support Payors Have to Watch Their Expenses

The Eighth District Court of Appeals has essentially ruled that a domestic relations court can rely on the monthly expenses voluntarily paid by an ex-husband as method of determining the actual functional income of the ex-husband for spousal support purposes. In Feldman v. Feldman, the Court held that it was proper for a magistrate to rely on the monthly expenses of the ex-husband - as opposed to the stated income of the ex-husband - to determine the amount of spousal support the ex-husband must continue to pay to the ex-wife. Thought: If in your divorce your actual monthly expenses exceed what you claim is your monthly income, you have some explaining to do.

More on Arbitration Agreements and Awards

On Ohio Court of Appeals has just held that if you sign a contract that has an arbitration provision (i.e. where the parties agree that all disputes under the contract must be arbitrated rather than litigated in a courtroom by a judge or jury), and, further, if the arbitrator issues a arbitration judgment against you, a court must ratify/confirm that judgment if the winning party applies to have the court do so. In NCO v. Reese, the court held that a trial court had erred when it failed to ratify/confirm an arbitration ruling, and that the trial court in fact HAS to ratify/confirm the arbitration ruling UNLESS the losing party can prove one of VERY limited number of factors. Thought: Be very careful about signing any contract containing an arbitration clause - you may be waving many of the rights you would otherwise have in a courtroom.

Cognovit Note Can Backfire

The Eighth District Court of Appeals has recently held that cognovit notes can, if improperly drafted, can backfire on the drafter. (Cognovit notes are special promissory notes - controlled by statute- which give the holder of the note the ability to get an immediate and automatic judgment if the debtor defaults - without the normal delay associated with normal litigation). If the language in the cognovit note is defective (that is, not drafted according to the statutory mandate), any judgment rendered on the note is void - and unless the complaint is properly served upon the defendant, any other normal judgment rendered against the defendant in a normal litigation process is void as well. In Adams v. Bennett, the Court made it clear that anyone (be it a pro se litigant or a lawyer) who incorrectly drafts a cognovit note may essentially have a worthless document. Thought: Forget the store bought or non-lawyer drafted cognovit notes if the loan in question is important to you.