Here are links to some selected articles of particular legal or local interest.

State of Ohio v. Hassler

27 September 2007 -- Under certain circumstances, Ohio courts may admit the results of a blood alcohol test taken outside the two-hour time limit for admissibility under the state's DUI statute, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today. The majority opinion cited a 1988 Supreme Court of Ohio decision, Newark v. Lucas, holding that blood alcohol test results taken outside of the statutory two-hour time limit were admissible in the prosecution of an “under the influence” DUI charge if those results were supported by expert testimony to establish their relevance.

Hall v. Banc One Mgt Corp

26 September 2007 -- The Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled that if one of nine 'principal challenges' to a prospective juror spelled out in state law is raised at trial and found valid, that finding establishes a conclusive presumption of disqualification. The Court held that a trial court must dismiss the disqualified juror and may not exercise discretion to seat that person based on his or her pledge of fairness. Of the nine principle challenges, only division (J) of the statute requires a court's subjective determination about a potential juror's fairness and impartiality.

State of Ohio v. Payne

26 September 2007 -- The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that in cases decided after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, Ohio criminal defendants who did not object at trial to receiving enhanced sentences based on factual findings made by a judge forfeited the right to later appeal their sentences based on that assignment of error. Only defendants who objected during trial based on a 2004 ruling are entitled to sentence review.

State of Ohio v. Lomax

5 September 2007 -- The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that, in order to meet statutory requirements, a criminal defendant's waiver of the right to a jury trial must not only be made in writing, signed by the defendant and filed as part of the trial record, but also must be made in open court. To meet the open court requirement, the Court held that there must be some evidence in the record that the defendant, while in the courtroom and in the presence of legal counsel, if any, acknowledged to the trial court his or her intent to waive a jury trial.
updated: 10/16/2007