These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
Ohio crimes
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Ohio statute criminalizing assault on a police officer qualifies as a crime of violence. The court noted that knowledge is a sufficient mens reas for a crime of violence. The court also found that force sufficient to cause physical harm — even of minimal gravity or duration — is sufficient to qualify as a crime of violence.
The full text of United States v. Alvarez can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/02/16/21-50088.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has determined that an Ohio robbery statute does not necessarily require the intentional infliction of violence force, and therefore, does not match the definition of a crime of violence. Specifically, the court noted that the reckless use of force can still result in injury to a victim.
The full text of US v. Butts can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0163p-06.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has determined that Ohio convictions for robbery and complicity to commit aggravated robbery are crimes of violence under the sentencing guidelines because they require the actual or threatened infliction of physical harm, which is defined as “any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” The court concluded that for “physical harm” to result, one must have deployed “physical force capable of causing physical pain or injury,” and thus a conviction under either statute qualified as a crime of violence. Given the similar definitions of a crime of violence in the sentencing law and the immigration law, this case could have persuasive value in the immigration context.
The full text of United States v. Johnson can be found here:
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/19a0182p-06.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has determined that a conviction in Ohio for aggravated assault is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because it necessarily entails in the infliction of serious physical injury on the victim.
The full text of Lovano v. Lynch can be found here:
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0013p-06.pdf
Agreeing with decisions by the Ninth, Tenth, and Eighth Circuits, the Sixth Circuit has determined that an Ohio conviction for soliciting prostitution is a crime involving moral turpitude.
The full text of Reyes v. Lynch can be found here:
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0210p-06.pdf
In a federal criminal case, the Sixth Circuit addressed whether an Ohio state conviction for arson matched the federal generic definition of arson and whether an Ohio state conviction for domestic violence qualified as a crime of violence under federal sentencing laws. The court determined that Ohio's arson statute (criminalizing knowingly causing or creating a substantial risk of physical harm to property without the victim’s consent by means of fire or explosion) was a categorical match to the federal generic definition of arson, which requires "the intentional or malicious burning of any property." The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the statute must include an element of a risk of harm to people. Though this determination was made in the context of a federal sentencing case, it has implications for immigration law, which defines aggravated felonies to include offenses involving explosive materials.
Ohio's domestic violence statute criminalizes knowingly causing, or attempting to cause, physical harm to a family or household member. Physical harm, in turn, is defined as any injury, illness, or other physiological mpairment, regardless of its gravity or duration. The court determined that this met the definition of a crime of violence under the federal sentencing law because it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another. Given the similarities between the definition of a crime of violence under federal sentencing law and immigration law, this analysis certainly has implications for immigration court proceedings as well.
The full decision in US v. Gatson can be found here: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0007p-06.pdf
