The Supreme Court of Ohio will consider state regulators’ approvals of gas rate increases and Ohio’s first “agrivoltaic” solar energy project when it meets next week for two days of oral arguments. The Supreme Court will also address several procedural issues in criminal cases, as well as whether a church’s insurance claim for roof damage was adequately settled.

The Court meets in Columbus on Oct. 28 and 29, hearing four cases each day. Oral arguments begin each day at 9 a.m. Viewers can watch the proceedings live. They will be streamed online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov and on the Ohio Channel, where they are archived.

Increase in Fixed Charge for Natural Gas (Wednesday)
In June 2021, Columbia Gas of Ohio applied to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) for a rate increase. The proposal included raising the fixed charge that residential customers pay for natural gas service, regardless of usage, from $36.15 per month in 2022 to $80 each month by 2027. After negotiations, several parties involved in the case agreed to a settlement, referred to as a stipulation. Their 2022 agreement reduced the $80 fixed monthly charge for 2027 to $58.01. The PUCO approved the stipulation.

In the matter of the application of Columbia Gas of Ohio Inc. stems from an appeal by the Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Citizens’ Utility Board of Ohio, which both object to the stipulation as not in the public interest. The groups contend that the record shows customers will have to pay higher fixed rates, a disproportionate burden on lower-income customers, while others will also lose the energy efficiency programs that help to conserve energy and lower their bills. The PUCO responds that the stipulation significantly reduces costs for customers in several ways, including by having an overall rate increase lower than what the utility company requested and lowering the amount for the proposed caps on riders.

Challenge to Madison County Solar Project (Tuesday)
In 2024, the Ohio Power Siting Board granted the Oak Run Solar Project a certificate to construct a large solar farm near the community of Plumwood in Madison County. The project will cover more than 4,000 acres and generate 800 megawatts of electricity. Additionally, the project will include a 300-megawatt battery energy storage system. Working with Ohio State University, Oak Run will be the largest “agrivoltaics” project in the United States. Within eight years, the land will also be home to 1,000 sheep and row crops, enabling the property to be used simultaneously for farming and solar-powered electricity generation.

The project is situated on private land that spans parts of Monroe, Somerford, and Deercreek townships. The trustees of the three townships and the Madison County Board of Commissioners voted to oppose the project. The local governments contend that the siting board violated state law by approving the project with 46 conditions that it must meet before it can operate. Among the concerns is the danger posed by the battery energy storage systems if they were to catch fire.

In re application of Oak Run Solar Project LLC has drawn interest from statewide environmental and business groups, which have participated by filing amicus curiae briefs. The board and project developers request that the Court permit the project to proceed.

The Court will hear three more cases each on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Tuesday, October 28
Death-Row Inmate New Trial Request
In 2017, a couple who owned a Cleveland used-car dealership were robbed and murdered. The man who was convicted and sentenced to death for the crimes filed a motion in August 2019 for a new trial. He contended he had newly discovered evidence from location data in his Google account that placed him at a different location than the car dealership at the time of the murders. The motion was docketed at the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court six days after the 120-day deadline in court rules. Six months later, in February 2020, he filed a request for leave, or permission, to file his new trial motion.

In May 2021, the trial court denied his new trial motion and didn’t rule on the request for leave. In State v. McAlpin, the offender argues both motions sat pending with the trial court for more than a year and it must rule first on his request for leave. The prosecutor counters that the offender filed his motions out of order. A request for leave must be filed first, before a new trial motion, the prosecutor maintains.

Additional Insurance Payment for Damage
A large church owns seven buildings in Franklin County, in which it conducts services and other church-related activities. The church filed a claim in 2019 with its property insurance company after noticing interior water staining on some of its buildings. The insurer originally offered $3,192 to cover the damage. The church invoked a “binding appraisal” provision of the policy, and the buildings were jointly inspected by two appraisers, one chosen by the church and the other by the insurer. After the inspection, the appraisers agreed that the church should be paid $351,461 for the damages.

When starting repairs in 2020, the church discovered more damage and requested that the insurer pay an additional $206,663. The insurance company refused, arguing that the binding appraisal process had settled the claim. In One Church v. Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, the Court will consider whether the policy allowed the church to request additional payments.

Prosecutor’s Ability To Appeal Judge’s Decision
After a trial in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, a jury found a woman not guilty of four of the six counts against her. The jury found her guilty of two counts of child endangering, which arose from a confrontation with her daughter. The following day, the trial court judge overturned the jury’s verdict on the two guilty counts and acquitted the woman of all charges.

The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office appealed the decision. The appeals court ruled that based on the 1987 Supreme Court of Ohio State v. Yates decision, the prosecutor couldn’t appeal the trial judge’s decision to acquit the woman. In State v. King, the prosecutor asks the Court to overturn Yates and rule that R.C. 2945.67(A) allows a prosecutor to challenge a judge’s decision to acquit a defendant after a jury finds the defendant guilty.

Wednesday, October 29
Death-Row Inmate’s Request To Reopen Case
In 1985, a Trumbull County man and his accomplice assaulted and murdered a 12-year-old boy. The man was sentenced to death. During his 1986 trial, he was described as intellectually disabled. At the time, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t forbid states from executing the intellectually disabled. However, in 2002, the high court banned the practice.

In 2003, the man filed for postconviction relief in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court, arguing his intellectual disability prevented the state from executing him. After being evaluated by three experts, the court upheld his death sentence. Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court set new standards for the death penalty, and the man asked the Trumbull County trial court to reopen his case. The trial court refused, but an appeals court, under Rule 60(B) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, directed the trial court to consider his case.

In State v. Hill, the Court will consider whether Rule 60(B) can be used in a postconviction relief case when the defendant’s request is not to consider some procedural error made by the trial court, but to contest the merits of the decision.

Rules for Accepting Guilty Pleas
A man pled guilty to nine offenses, including felonious assault and robbery, in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Before accepting the plea, the judge formally asked the man several questions. The court accepted the plea and a few weeks later held a sentencing hearing, where the man questioned some of the victims’ accounts regarding what happened. He asked to withdraw his plea. The court rejected the request and imposed a 10-year prison sentence.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the case because appeals courts in Ohio have differing interpretations of the required steps for trial courts when accepting a guilty plea. Those requirements are explained in Rule 11(C) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. In State v. Fontanez, the offender asserts that the trial court failed to inform him when he pled guilty of the implications of a complete admission of guilt. The prosecutor maintains that the offender understood he was admitting guilt when entering the plea.

Evidence Obtained From Searches
The man at the center of State v. Jones was arrested in 2020 after police officers followed him from a Cincinnati house they had been surveilling based on drug activity complaints. Police subsequently went back to the house, spoke with the person who answered the door, and conducted a protective sweep, during which they saw a safe on the third floor. They then got consent from the person, who didn’t own the home, to search the house. A search warrant was obtained for the safe, and police found drugs, digital scales, thousands in cash, and documents with the man’s name on them. The appeals court ruled the man’s attorney was ineffective for not challenging more issues during a hearing to suppress the evidence from the searches.

The Hamilton County prosecutor argues the appeals court improperly relied on police body camera footage that wasn’t made part of the record at the hearing. The man counters that the additional bodycam videos shown at the trial following the hearing are also part of the record and could be considered by the appeals court.