14 results for 'judge:"Zimmerman"'.
J. Zimmerman finds the trial court improperly dismissed the state's indictment on drug trafficking charges against defendant. The discovery evidence of a tentative understanding between the state and a confidential informant did not constitute an agreement that hindered the defense or prejudiced defendant's ability to defend himself against the charges. Additionally, the discovery evidence was available to defendant at all times and so there was no attempt by the state to withhold or conceal evidence. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: May 13, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1849, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Drug Offender, Discovery
J. Zimmerman finds the trial court improperly dismissed the state's indictment on drug trafficking charges against defendant. The discovery evidence of a tentative understanding between the state and a confidential informant did not constitute an agreement that hindered the defense or prejudiced defendant's ability to defend himself against the charges. Additionally, the discovery evidence was available to defendant at all times and so there was no attempt by the state to withhold or conceal evidence. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: May 13, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1848, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Drug Offender, Discovery
J. Zimmerman finds inconsistencies in testimony provided by the victim and several eyewitnesses did not render defendant's assault conviction against the weight of the evidence. Although he claimed to have acted in self-defense when he stabbed the victim nine times, he admitted to voluntarily engaging in a fight with the victim, while there was no evidence to suggest he was in serious danger. Furthermore, the trial court was not required to give a provocation instruction to the jury because there was no evidence in the record to indicate defendant acted out of a "sudden fit of passion" following a dispute with the victim. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1750, Categories: Assault, Weapons, Self Defense
J. Zimmerman finds defendant's due process rights were not violated when the trial court failed to record in-chambers discussions held with both parties. He offers only speculative arguments as to why the contents of these discussions would benefit him or prove prejudice. Meanwhile, although a portion of lab tests were inconclusive as to whether the substance trafficked by defendant was cocaine, testimony from the confidential informant and defendant's own assertion during the drug sale the substance was cocaine was sufficient for the jury to convict him of drug trafficking. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1333, Categories: Drug Offender, Evidence, Due Process
J. Zimmerman finds that the trial court erroneously granted the steel building company's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the farm owners' interference with a contract claim. Although the company was entitled to file a mechanic's lien against the farm when the owners failed to pay for a barn, its refusal to remove a defective lien, which was incorrectly placed on the land and not the farm itself, interfered with the owners' relationship with its bank, who had a priority lien on the property. Meanwhile, the trial court should have granted the owners' motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict on the building company's contract claim because its failure to deliver a building that met design specifications constituted a prior breach of the parties' agreement that excused the owners from further payments. Reversed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-698, Categories: Interference With Contract, Contract
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
[Consolidated.] J. Zimmerman finds the trial court properly granted family services' motion for permanent custody of the parents' children. While the mother and father completed portions of their case plan following the removal and placement of their children in foster care, they did not remedy their lack of stable and safe housing, which was the primary reason the children were removed. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: November 13, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4089, Categories: Evidence, Family Law
J. Zimmerman finds the lower court properly granted permanent custody of the children to family services. The mother repeatedly chose to prioritize her toxic relationship with the children's father over the one with her children, while she also failed to address mental health issues and developmental delays that have improved while the children have lived with their foster family. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3206, Categories: Evidence, Family Law
J. Zimmerman finds that the lower court properly sentenced defendant convicted of violating a protection order and telecommunications harassment. Defendant’s arguments regarding the “weight of the evidence are unpersuasive.” Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: July 24, 2023, Case #: 023-Ohio-2530, Categories: Evidence
J. Zimmerman finds the trial court properly granted permanent custody of the child to her maternal grandparents despite their claims of being overwhelmed by the responsibility. Such an admission did not prevent them from providing a safe home for the child but was merely a normal reaction to the situation. Meanwhile, the lack of concrete evidence of the parents' income did not prevent the court from imposing child support orders because it was clearly established that both were employed, while the payment calculations were based on potential income. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2442, Categories: Evidence, Family Law
J. Zimmerman finds the trial court did not violate defendant's constitutional right to indictment by a grand jury when it granted the state's motion to alter the date of his crimes on the indictment. None of the crimes or his alleged actions changed as a result of the motion, which was merely used to correct a mistake in the initial filing. Meanwhile, defendant's identity as the shooter was properly established by both eyewitness testimony from the victim and another witness, as well as surveillance footage of defendant's dispute with the victim prior to the shooting. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2193, Categories: Evidence, Firearms, Assault
J. Zimmerman finds that defendant's fair trial claims regarding the victim police officer attending trial next to the prosecutor cannot be considered by this court. He failed to raise any plain-error constitutional arguments in his appeal, and so that portion of his appeal will be dismissed. Meanwhile, testimony from the other officers at the scene of the crime was sufficient to convict defendant of obstruction, considering they testified defendant held his cell phone immediately in front of the victim's face and prevented him from observing the arrest of another individual at the bar. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: June 26, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2100, Categories: Evidence, Fair Trial, Assault
J. Zimmerman finds the lower court properly granted the shopping center's motion for summary judgment on the patron's trip and fall claim. The curb in the parking lot was not hidden and, therefore, was an open and obvious hazard under Ohio law. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-1703, Categories: Evidence, Negligence
J. Zimmerman finds that while the zoning officials and trustees were not members of law enforcement or prosecuting attorneys and improperly issued search warrants for the property owner's farm, the lower court properly dismissed the owner's complaint. The evidence used to obtain the warrants gave the officials probable cause to conduct the administrative searches. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-1704, Categories: Administrative Law, Constitution, Zoning
J. Zimmerman finds the lower court erroneously dismissed the contract and fiduciary duty claims against the title company. Although there was no written agreement for the company to act as an escrow agent, the fees paid by the homebuyer and services performed by the company's employee create an issue of fact as to whether an escrow agreement existed. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-1706, Categories: Real Estate, Fiduciary Duty, Contract