Latest 2 Cases: State ex rel. Newsome v. Hack (Criminal Law), State v. Pettus (Criminal Law)

In Gratuitously Attacking Marriage Equality, Clarence Thomas Accidentally Raised an Important Question About the Scope of Religious Liberty

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a statement by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) gratuitously expressing his hostility to the Court’s same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and his sympathy for Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even after the Supreme Court’s decision. Although Justice Thomas characterizes Davis and those like her as people who “refus[e] to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy,” Dorf points out that no one asked Davis to alter her religious beliefs. Rather, the lawsuit against her contends that she must provide services to the public in accordance with their constitutional rights, whatever her religious beliefs.

Read More

State ex rel. Newsome v. Hack

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4812

Opinion Date: October 13, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court vacated its earlier judgment granting Relator a writ of mandamus and entered a judgment denying the writ, holding that because a transcript could not be located, the earlier judgment cannot be executed. Relator filed an original action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent, a former Marion County court reporter, to inform him of the cost to obtain a copy of his 2009 sentencing transcript. The Supreme Court granted the writ. The Court then vacated its judgment, holding that where the only evidence indicating that a transcript of Relator's sentencing hearing existed was the trial court's incorrect statement to that effect, this Court's previous judgment could not be executed.

State v. Pettus

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4836

Opinion Date: October 13, 2020

Judge: Fischer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals in this criminal case, holding that Ohio Rev. Code 2913.61(C)(1) unambiguously allows for the aggregation of multiple theft offenses involving one victim into a single count, regardless of the status of the victim. In connection with multiple alleged incidents of passing fraudulent checks at four separate banks, Defendant was convicted of four counts of theft in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2913.02(A)(3). In accordance with section 2913.61(C)(1), each theft count aggregated the multiple instances of theft alleged against each respective bank. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's sentences in part and otherwise affirmed. In so doing, the court held that section 2913.61(C)(1) does not limit the aggregation of theft offenses under section 2913.02 to offenses involving victims who are disabled adults, elderly persons, or military persons. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the unambiguous language of section 2913.61(C)(1) allows aggregation of theft offenses, regardless of the status of the victim.