Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio

Three Cases Will Be Argued Before the Supreme Court at Off-Site Court Session in Crawford County

Students from Six High Schools Will Attend Proceedings and Meet Justices

Two domestic violence cases and a case examining whether a minor has a right to participate in a parental visitation proceeding will be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court in Bucyrus on October 23.

The Supreme Court’s justices will travel to Bucyrus High School in Crawford County to hear oral arguments in the three cases. Summaries of the cases were released today. The official session outside Columbus is part of the court’s nationally recognized, biannual Off-Site Court Program, which is designed to educate the public about the court system.

Students from Bucyrus, Buckeye Central, Colonel Crawford, Crestline, Galion, and Wynford high schools will participate. Before the day of oral arguments, students and teachers study curriculum material, including summaries of the specific cases that will be argued. Local attorneys partner with educators at each school to explain Ohio’s judicial system and to review case materials. On the morning of October 23, students will engage in a question-and-answer session with the justices. In addition, students will meet after the court’s session with the case attorneys to debrief and discuss the legal issues.

Oral arguments in Bucyrus will begin at 9 a.m. The arguments will be carried live online at and broadcast live on the Ohio Channel.

Cases for Wednesday, October 23
The court will consider these three cases at the off-site session:

  • In State of Ohio v. Jeffrey McGlothan, the state appeals the reversal of the domestic violence conviction of a Euclid man. The Eighth District Court of Appeals upheld an attempted felonious assault conviction but found that the state didn’t show that the man and his girlfriend shared any living expenses that would demonstrate a shared familial or financial responsibility, as required by the domestic violence statute. The state counters that the elements of cohabitation can be met without evidence that two people share financial responsibility.
  • State of Ohio v. Timothy Tate considers how prior convictions need to be established during trial to elevate a domestic violence offense from a misdemeanor to a felony. When a defendant stipulates (agrees) to prior convictions during trial, the state contends that it doesn’t need to offer any additional evidence to prove that the person convicted in the earlier cases is the person currently on trial.
  • Attorneys for an Oak Harbor minor argue in the case In re A.G. that the child should have been permitted to attend and participate in a hearing to address her father’s request for unsupervised visitation. Her attorneys assert that she had a direct interest in the outcome of that proceeding and the Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure don’t allow a person with a direct interest in a case to be excluded from a hearing. Because she couldn’t personally participate in the trial, A.G. was denied her right to due process under the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, her attorneys contend.