Top Ten Blog Hits of 2019

It’s year-end list time, with some perennial favorites and some newcomers this year.

  1. What Happened on Remand: Brandon Moore Given Fifty Year Sentence. Brandon Moore was originally sentenced to 141 years in prison for what now-retired Justice Paul Pfeifer described as “a criminal rampage of escalating depravity,” committed when Moore was 15 years old. That sentence was reversed by the Seventh District Court of Appeals. A second sentence was reversed for improper judicial fact-finding. At a third mandated re-sentencing, Moore was given an aggregate sentence of 112 years. Moore appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing that sentence was tantamount to life without the possibility of parole, impermissible for juvenile offenders. Moore won the appeal. Read the analysis here. The case was again remanded for re-sentencing. This time, on April 17, 2018, Moore was sentenced to 50 years in prison. That sentence, which will make Moore eligible for release at age 62, has been appealed to the Seventh District. Oral argument is pending. Moore’s case was one of the cases that was featured in April of 2019 on an Arts and Entertainment TV Show called Kids Behind Bars: Life or Parole.  That probably accounts for the number one placement of this case this year.
  2. Titles of Former and Retired Judges, Revisited. Every year I am surprised at the popularity of this one. I hope it’s because folks want to know how to address these judges properly.
  3. In  Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, the Court held that a Civ. R. 60(B) motion cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal on the issue of standing in a foreclosure action, and cannot be used to collaterally attack the judgment. Additionally, the Court held that a court that has subject-matter jurisdiction over an action does not lose that jurisdiction because a party to the action does not have standing in that particular case. This one has been on the list every year since it came out, often in first place. Read the analysis of the merit decision here.
  4. Anderson v. Massillon has been another perennial favorite ever since it was decided. It gets cited a lot. The Court held in the case syllabus that negligence, recklessness, willful and wanton misconduct represent different degrees of culpability, and defined all these terms. Read the analysis of the merit decision  here.
  5. State v. Vega, 2018-Ohio-4002. In this case the Court examined how far the unmistakable smell of pot can take a police search following a traffic stop. Ultimately, the Court upheld the search of the defendant’s car, the duration of that search, and the subsequent discovery of wrapped marijuana candy in sealed envelopes in the car. This decision moved up several slots from last year. Read an analysis of the merit decision here.
  6. D.W.v. T.L.,  2012-Ohio-5743 is another long-time favorite, successfully argued by my former student Ginger Bock. The issue in the case is how a child’s last name is determined when the parents aren’t married and disagree about it. The Court held that under its existing precedent, the test in a name change case is the best interest of the child, which in this case was to keep the mother’s name. Read the analysis of the merit decision here.
  7. The oral argument preview in State v. Faggs, 2018-1592 This one hasn’t been decided yet. The issue in the case is whether, in a criminal prosecution of a parent for domestic violence pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(A), the State bears the burden to prove unreasonable parental discipline, or if reasonable parental discipline is an affirmative defense. Read the preview of the case here and an analysis of the argument here.
  8. Liming v. Damos, 2012-Ohio-4783.This one has made the list many times. The Court held that a purge hearing to impose a suspended sentence for failure to pay child support is a civil proceeding, and due process does not require the appointment of counsel for an indigent parent at the civil contempt purge hearing. Read the analysis of the merit decision here.
  9. In re Adoption of B.I.,2019-Ohio-2450. This case, new to the list, was a 4-3 decision that came out this year, in which the Court held that a parent with a zero child support order does not give up the right to contest the adoption of his child for failure to provide maintenance and support. Read an analysis of the decision here.
  10. In tenth place is the analysis of the oral argument in another case that hasn’t been decided yet-State v. Jeffries, 2018-0338. At issue in the case is whether Ohio’s rape-shield statute prohibits evidence of prior sexual abuse suffered by the victim. The case was argued March 27 of this year. Read an analysis of the argument  here and an analysis of the argument here.

And first runner-up is State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-5159. I don’t usually do runner-ups, but this decision just came out December 17, 2019, and it is already just shy of the top-ten list. It’s about dogs, so I think it’s a fair guess there are a lot of dog owners out there. The Court held that a dog need not be previously designated as “dangerous” before the owner can be prosecuted under R.C. 955.22(D) for failing to confine a dangerous dog, but that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that the dog in this case was dangerous.  Read an analysis of the merit decision here.

Happy New Year to All.