11th District Criminal Appeals Update – Pants On Fire Edition

Recent Posts



11th district criminal appeals judgesAfter a few weeks with nothing more that late and dismissed appeals, attempts to withdraw pleas, and other minor issues, we get a solid criminal opinion – and it’s a loss in one of my cases.  I’m also throwing in a case from two weeks ago that became a little more interesting over the weekend.

State v. Evans, 2014-Ohio-2298
Evans has an argument with her husband and goes to the hospital via “pink slip.”  Unhappy with her treatment there, she tries to leave.  A sheriff’s deputy pursues her and eventually takes her down in the parking lot.  He alleges Evans punched him in the face.  Evans says he punched her, and if she struck him it was an accident in the struggle.  She gets convicted of Assault on a Peace Officer.  At issue are the deputy’s disciplinary records, which memorialize a 2007 incident in which he lied multiple times to a superior about damage to a police cruiser that happened while he was on duty.  The judge disallowed the use of those records to cross-examine him on his credibility.  The Court notes that the records themselves were not proffered into the record – although the information directly above was, and really, what more do you need to know?  But it doesn’t matter anyways, because the Court says there was enough other evidence.  Manifest Weight and Sufficiency arguments go nowhere.  Rice.  Grendell concurs in judgment only.  O’Toole dissents.  I dissent.

State v. Taylor, 2015-Ohio-2080
In keeping with the theme of dishonesty, Taylor tried to withdraw his plea to a Rape charge, claiming his attorney told him to lie and threatened him with a psychological evaluation.  On appeal, he argues that those allegations created a conflict of interest with his attorney.  I’ll leave it to the reader to click the link and read the conversation between Taylor and the judge, because I don’t want my web page flagged as spam.  The Court upholds the denial.  What made this opinion become interesting is that a few days ago the 1st District released State v. Foreman, with very similar allegations.  The 1st District reversed that case, leaving a conflict for potential review by the Ohio Supreme Court.  Grendell.  Cannon concurs with concurring opinion.  O’Toole dissents.