In the afternoon, the court took into account that he entered someone’s garage to steal the leaves

In the year On a fall afternoon in 2020, Timothy Huff was landscaping his front yard when he noticed a man drive by his house, turn around and park at the end of his driveway. In fact, Donald Bertram gave Huff a friendly smile, quietly walked into Huff’s garage, picked up Huff’s new leaf blower, and returned to his car.

In disbelief and fear, Huff tells Bertram to stop and blow the $500 bill. Bertram puts the wind in the car and drives off. Bertram, who was charged with burglary, admitted trespassing on Huff’s property and took the leaves, but said he was no burglar.

At the trial, Bert also argued that he should be charged with theft. RC 2911.12(A)(2), the prosecutor must show that the criminal “by force, covertly or by deception” into a structure with the intention of committing a crime. Bertram is not guilty because he has no powers, he didn’t sneak into Huff and he didn’t even talk to Huff.

The trial judge and jury disagreed. Bertram was convicted and sentenced to eight to 12 years in prison. Bertram appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, which found his “malicious behavior” sufficient to convict him. During oral arguments next week, the Ohio Supreme Court will examine whether Bertram’s actions constituted theft.

The Supreme Court is looking into it. State v. Bertram and two other issues in a special off-site session at the new University of Cincinnati Law School in Cincinnati. The judges will preside over an audience of UC undergraduates and law school students from six Hamilton County high schools.

The Wednesday, April 19 visit to Cincinnati will be the Supreme Court’s 81st off-site session and the second visit to Hamilton County since the program began in 1988.

Watch the oral argument online
Before taking up matters in Cincinnati, the court on Tuesday, April 18 in Columbus by Thomas J. Moyer examines four cases in the Ohio Justice Center. Oral arguments will begin at 9:00 a.m. each day, and the arguments will be streamed live online supremecourt.ohio.gov And live broadcast Ohio ChannelArchived.

Detailed case previews from the Court’s Public Information Office are available by clicking on each case name.

Tuesday, April 18
Solar farms
A developer has filed an application with the Ohio Power Siting Board in 2018 to build two solar power plants in Preble County. In total, the projects cover more than 1,900 acres and generate 150 megawatts of power. A group of county residents opposed the project and argued in court that the board violated its own rules in approving the construction of the two solar farms. The court will consider Alamo Solar I and Angelina Solar 1 re-implementation If the Board is empowered to approve a number of conditions that the developer must comply with during construction and operation.

The return of eyewitnesses
In the year A man has been sentenced to 21 years in prison for a 2012 shooting and robbery in Cleveland. In the year In 2020, the man told the court he had new evidence that could affect the validity of his conviction. The victim submitted an affidavit showing complaints about his earlier testimony and the conviction that he was the shooter. The court did not hold a hearing and denied the request to see the new information. in State v. Johnson, argued that the person has the right to a hearing so that evidence and issues can be resolved. The county prosecutor argued that the man had not shown why he could not find the witness.
Uncertainties ahead.

Limitation of trial period
A man filed a lawsuit in Montgomery County based on a 2017 car accident. A driver said he was injured after running a red light and hitting his car. The man tried unsuccessfully to deliver the notice of the charge to the driver. He re-filed the complaint twice – once before the expiry of the two-year limitation period and once after. in McCullough v. Bennett, the driver charged in the accident said the man could only renew the charge once, and the ban did not affect the one-time limit on re-filing. It was too late, the driver argued. The plaintiff is challenging state law that allows him to amend his complaint within a year after the court dismisses the second complaint.

A miscarriage of justice
in Disciplinary Counsel v Judge GolA Cleveland judge found the criminal defendants violated 30 ethics rules, including violating constitutional rights and wrongfully imprisoning people. A one-year ban has been brought before the Supreme Court. The judge agreed that he violated 10 rules of conduct, but explained that the other charges were not proven. He requested that the ban be stayed. Disciplinary counsel argued that the judge had made peremptory pleas and reduced the offense, which supported a valid suspension.

Wednesday, April 19th
Police dog bites
A Belmont County sheriff’s deputy prepared food and let his three dogs and a trained police dog roam the backyard with his guests. The officer showed off the police dog’s skills by placing orders that are used to search for drugs and arrest criminals. One of the guests was setting up a backyard game when a police dog jumped up and bit her on the chest. She required surgery for her injuries and sued the deputy. in Harris v. HilderbrandThe court ruled that the deputy’s job requirement to keep the dog at home protected him from liability for dog bites, even outside of work.

Car insurance
in Acuity v. ProgressiveA teenager with a license to drive someone else’s car lost control and hit a utility pole in Streetsboro. The car was insured by the owner and the teenager was insured under his father’s policy. The two insurance companies dispute their responsibility to cover the liability claims related to the accident. The insurance company for the vehicle argues that the policy does not cover the young driver or drivers who have their own auto insurance. The emerging insurance company claims that the other insurer cannot escape liability by excluding drivers in this situation from coverage in the policy.