17 results for 'judge:"Huffman"'.
J. Huffman finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of second degree murder after he was convicted in an earlier trial for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated for the same incident. Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is not a lesser included offense of murder, so the second conviction did not violate his double jeopardy protections. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: D081050, Categories: Murder, Double Jeopardy, Dui
J. Huffman finds the trial court erred in granting an insurer judgment on the pleadings on an insured's claim for Covid-19 business interruption coverage. Unlike most commercial property policies, the subject policy includes a virus endorsement that provides coverage for loss or damage caused by a virus, including the cost of removal. Further proceedings are need to develop facts and evidence about whether exclusions and conditions on the virus endorsement make it impermissibly illusory. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: D081132, Categories: Insurance, Covid-19
J. Huffman holds that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a judgment debtor's motion to tax costs after finding that a judgment creditor had not yet prevailed on its fraudulent transfer claim. Statute does not have a prevailing party requirement where a judgment creditor incurs reasonable and necessary interim costs to enforce a judgment. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: D081492, Categories: Enforcement Of Judgments, Attorney Fees, Contract
J. Huffman finds the lower court properly granted custody of the children to their uncle. Neither parent took responsibility for actions that led to the initial removal of the children, including anger management and drug issues, while they also failed to complete the majority of their case plans, failed numerous drug tests and missed visitations. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: February 16, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-601, Categories: Evidence, Family Law
J. Huffman finds that defendant's due process rights were not violated when he was excluded from the victim's competency hearing with the trial court. His attorney was allowed to attend and no questions regarding defendant's guilt were asked during the hearing. Meanwhile, the decision by defendant's attorney not to call character witnesses was part of a sound trial strategy and does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. Calling such witnesses would have opened the door to potentially harmful testimony about his relationship with his daughter, the victim. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: January 26, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-277, Categories: Domestic Violence, Due Process, Child Victims
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Huffman holds that the trial court should have suppressed evidence police obtained from defendant through a warrantless blood draw taken when he was unconscious at a hospital following a traffic collision. The exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement the U.S. Supreme Court laid out in Mitchell does not apply. Defendant was conscious during transport to the hospital, his condition was not dire and the arresting officer was not prevented from obtaining a warrant. Also, the good faith exception based on implied consent does not apply because the officer had not arrested him or made a decision to arrest him when his blood was drawn. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: D080585, Categories: Search, Dui, Plea
J. Huffman finds the trial court properly admitted all of the state's autopsy photos into evidence during defendant's trial on murder and firearms offenses. Although some included graphic images of the victim's gunshot wounds, each was used to explain the circumstances of the victim's death and the angle at which the bullet entered his head in support of the prosecution's theory of the case. Meanwhile, the prosecutor's isolated statement during closing arguments that defendant was the only individual charged despite video evidence of multiple shooters was not prosecutorial misconduct that implied his guilt. It was designed only to remind the jury to focus on the specific evidence against defendant and supported the state's complicity theory. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4834, Categories: Firearms, Murder, Prosecutorial Misconduct
J. Huffman holds, on first impression, that the trial court must revisit a police department’s denial of a reporter's request for video footage from 911 drone flights. The reporter requested footage from one month of flights made under a test program using drones as first responders. The footage is not categorically exempt as an investigatory record under the Public Records Act since some drone missions are making factual inquiries to see what assistance is needed. Also, the city failed to show that the Act's catchall provision allowed it to deny requests for footage from non-exempted factual inquiries on privacy grounds. Vacated.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: D082048, Categories: Public Record
J. Huffman finds the trial court properly granted the Ohio Secretary of State's motion to dismiss an employment-related action. Although the former board of elections employee's lawsuit deals with other members' failure to adhere to election procedures, it is essentially a wrongful termination suit in which the secretary has no interest. However, the lower court improperly dismissed the action against the county. The county's failure to include the argument the employee stated a claim on which no relief could be granted in their first dismissal motion prevented it from filing a second, successive motion following the transfer from Franklin County to Champaign County. Reversed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: December 22, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4688, Categories: Elections, Employment, Government
J. Huffman finds that the trial court retained jurisdiction over defendant's resentencing on an attempted home invasion robbery conviction and other counts because his appeal was still pending. However, because he was not present at the resentencing hearing and did not waive his right to be present, a new hearing must be held. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: November 29, 2023, Case #: D081230, Categories: Robbery, Sentencing, Jurisdiction
J. Huffman finds the trial court erroneously granted the policyholder's motion to compel discovery of his entire claim file with State Farm Insurance. Certain documents in the file provide evidence of the value of his uninsured motorist's claim, which is part of the case yet to be litigated; therefore, discovery of those documents will be stayed until the uninsured motorist portion of the suit is resolved. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: October 13, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3731, Categories: Insurance, Discovery, Privilege
J. Huffman finds the lower court properly denied the father's motions for temporary custody extensions. The expiration of family services' temporary custody mooted the claim, which allowed the father to pursue relief only through permanent custody proceedings. Meanwhile, the father's refusal to regularly meet with family services and both parents' failures to make significant progress in their case plans allowed the court to grant custody to family services in the best interests of the child. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3183, Categories: Civil Procedure, Family Law
J. Huffman holds that the trial court erred when it found that a 2020 citizens' initiative, Measure C, that would raise hotel occupancy taxes, had not met the two-thirds voter majority threshold and was invalid. If on remand the trial court determines that the measure was a citizens' initiative, then it was not subject to Propositions 13 and 218, so a simple majority requirement applied, even though ballot descriptions and materials stated that a two-thirds threshold applied. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: August 11, 2023, Case #: D080199, Categories: Elections, Tax
J. Huffman finds that although defendant's attorney failed to timely file the motion of his intent to argue self-defense, defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel because the trial court still allowed a full hearing on the matter and so he was not prejudiced by the filing error. Meanwhile, the trial court did not err when it accepted defendant's no contest pleas because it properly informed him of all the consequences of the pleas and defendant told the court he understood his decision, including the inability to appeal his self-defense argument. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: August 4, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2701, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, Murder, Plea
J. Huffman holds that the trial court erred when, after vacating defendant's two murder convictions, it redesignated robbery as the basis for his conviction. Defendant was not given notice that he would face a robbery charge and the charge was not supported by substantial evidence. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: D080369, Categories: Murder, Robbery, Due Process
J. Huffman finds that the trial court gave defendant a public trial, maintained the integrity of the jury and relied on sufficient evidence to convict her of murder, elder abuse, theft and perjury. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: July 11, 2023, Case #: D080917, Categories: Murder, Due Process, Elder Abuse
J. Huffman finds that the trial court properly denied a petition for the placement of a child in the home of her siblings' adoptive parents. The adoptive parents do not qualify as relatives under statute. The child had developed a positive and secure attachment to her de facto parents, who began caring for her a few days after her birth, and evidence showed that a move to Michigan to live with a new family could cause the child trauma. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: D081396, Categories: Family Law