The Problem of Evil and Free Will

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb reflects on why, if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and benevolent, there is still evil in the world. Colb argues that one common answer—free will—does not truly resolve that question.

Read More

State v. Jones

Citation: 2019-Ohio-5159

Opinion Date: December 17, 2019

Judge: Stewart

Areas of Law: Animal / Dog Law

The Supreme Court accepted the State's appeal from the decision of the court of appeals concluding that a prior designation as a dangerous dog is a prerequisite to its owner being prosecuted for failing to confine a dangerous dog in violation of of Ohio Rev. Code 955.22(D), holding that a prior designation of dangerousness pursuant to section 955.222 or otherwise is not a prerequisite to prosecution for failing to abide by the statute's dangerous dog laws. Defendant was convicted of failing to confine a dangerous dog. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a previous dangerous dog designation is a prerequisite to finding a violation of section 955.22(D). The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding (1) neither due process nor statutory language requires a prior dangerous dog designation before a defendant can be prosecuted for noncompliance with section 955.22's dangerous dog provisions; but (2) the State failed to meet its burden of offering sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for failure to control a dangerous dog.

State v. Wintermeyer

Citation: 2019-Ohio-5156

Opinion Date: December 17, 2019

Judge: DeWine

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals refusing to consider for the first time on appeal the State's argument that Defendant lacked Fourth Amendment standing to contest the admission of seized evidence, holding that when the State fails to dispute a defendant's standing in the trial court, it is foreclosed on appeal from attacking the trial court's judgment on these grounds. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that a detention violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the arresting officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity at the time he detained Defendant. The State appealed, arguing that Defendant lacked standing to contest the admission of the evidence seized. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where the State did not assert in the trial court that Defendant lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge his detention, the State was precluded from asserting that argument in its appeal from the judgment granting Defendant's motion to suppress.