Andrew Douglas

This case consolidated challenges by Ohio inmates to the Adult Parole Authority's (APA) use of 1998 parole guidelines in determining eligibility for release under indeterminate sentences. The inmates argued that the APA improperly assigned offense category scores based on alleged conduct beyond their actual convictions, such as dismissed or uncharged offenses. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the APA must assign an offense category score corresponding solely to the offense or offenses of conviction. The core reasoning was that the guidelines require the score to reflect the conviction itself to promote consistency and fairness, while still allowing the APA discretion to consider surrounding circumstances and other factors when making the ultimate parole decision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a minor struck by an uninsured driver in 1996, resulting in permanent injuries; his parents sued the driver and their insurer, State Automobile, under a policy providing up to $300,000 in uninsured motorist coverage. After the driver declared bankruptcy, the case proceeded against the insurer and was submitted to arbitration, which awarded $275,000 in damages plus 10% prejudgment interest from the accident date. The trial court confirmed the damages but vacated the interest award, ruling that arbitration panels lack authority over prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03 and that interest was unavailable when damages did not exceed policy limits. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that the panel could not reconsider its initial award. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that prejudgment interest may cause total recovery to exceed policy limits, that arbitration panels have authority to award such interest, and that panels lack power to reconsider an entered award.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Tazwell Lomax, indicted on multiple counts including aggravated murder with specifications that could support the death penalty, who was convicted by a three-judge panel of aggravated murder during an aggravated robbery and aggravated robbery but acquitted of other charges and specifications. Prior to the penalty phase, the trial court granted Lomax's motion to impose a life sentence under R.C. 2929.03(A) because Count Three of the indictment omitted required elements from R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) such as principal-offender status or prior calculation and design, and denied the state's motion to amend the indictment. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the court of appeals lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. 2945.67(A) to review the trial court's judgment entry on the state's appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by Ohio business owners to a regulation adopted by the Lucas County Board of Health that banned smoking in nearly all indoor public places, including bars, restaurants, and workplaces, with criminal penalties for violations. The Ohio Supreme Court addressed certified questions from a federal district court regarding the board's authority under state law. The court held that R.C. 3709.21 is merely a rules-enabling statute that allows local health boards to implement policies already established by the General Assembly, not to create new substantive regulations on public health matters. It reasoned that the legislature had not expressed intent to grant boards unlimited power to address all health concerns through regulation, and administrative bodies cannot independently set public policy.

business & regulatory

In State v. LaSalle, the defendant was convicted of domestic violence in 1998 and filed an application in November 1999 under R.C. 2953.32 to seal the record of that conviction. A statutory amendment effective March 2000 (R.C. 2953.36(C)) barred sealing records for such offenses, and after the trial court initially granted then vacated the sealing order, the court of appeals held the amendment inapplicable. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that absent clear legislative intent for retroactive application, statutes operate prospectively only per R.C. 1.48, and the law in effect at the time an R.C. 2953.32 application is filed controls. The core reasoning focused on the civil, post-conviction nature of sealing remedies and the filing date as the relevant temporal marker for determining applicable law.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Parker, the defendant was charged with aggravated murder carrying a death-penalty specification along with other offenses, waived his right to a jury trial, and entered a guilty plea after the state agreed not to seek the death penalty but without removing the specification from the indictment; a single trial judge accepted the plea and imposed sentence. The Ohio Supreme Court held that a single judge lacked authority to proceed and that the case must instead be heard by a three-judge panel. The core reasoning was that R.C. 2945.06 and Crim.R. 11(C)(3) expressly require a three-judge court whenever a defendant charged with an offense punishable by death waives a jury trial, and that requirement is triggered by the charges in the indictment rather than by whether the state ultimately seeks capital punishment.

criminal lawprocedure