Ohio Supreme Court criminal cases

In a 5-1 majority opinion written by Justice Robert R. Cupp this morning, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that an plea-bargaining agreement between a Lake County man and local prosecutors in which the defendant entered a guilty plea of aggravated vehicular assault, and the state agreed to drop two criminal specifications and continue the defendant's bond, constituted a "negotiated guilty plea" that barred the state from later charging the defendant with vehicular homicide when the victim died as a result of his injuries.

Court’s summary here


The Court yesterday ruled that when a trial court fails to include restitution in the sentence that is pronounced on a criminal defendant at his sentencing hearing, or in the journal entry recording that sentence, the court may not later add restitution to that person's sentence by means of a "nunc pro tunc" (now for then) entry amending the court's journal.

Opinion
Court's case summary

Also, in a 7-0 decision yesterday, the Supreme Court held that a court of appeals could not reverse a criminal conviction based on the improper admission of spousal testimony in violation of Evidence Rule 601(B) unless the appellate court conducts a plain-error analysis and determines that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the spousal testimony had not been admitted. "Ohio Evidence Rule 601(B)," the Court said, "provides that the spouse of a criminal defendant is not competent (not legally eligible) to testify against his or her spouse at trial unless the defendant is charged with a crime against the spouse or their children, or unless the spouse freely elects to testify."

Opinion
Court’s summary