REPRESENTATIVE CASES

In re Application of Correction of Birth Record of Adelaide, 2022-Ohio-2053

In 2021, a man from Clark County applied to probate court to change the sex marker issued on his birth certificate. The man, Brian Edward DeBoard (now legally named Hailey Adelaide), argued that he began to believe that he was a woman at the age of 4 and that because his birth certificate currently did not reflect his current sexual identity, he was entitled to apply for a correction to the birth certificate that was issued when he was born.

  

Judge Lewis wrote the deciding opinion for the 2nd District Court of Appeals in this case, affirming the decision of the trial court. The appellate court found that corrections of birth records can only be permitted when the sex identified at birth was actually incorrectly recorded at the time of birth. There was no evidence provided that that was the case.

  

Judge Lewis’ opinion stands as the current law in Ohio after the Ohio Supreme Court could not reach a majority decision on the matter.

 

 

State v. Connelly, 2023-Ohio-2607 

When Matthew Connelly pled guilty to one count of felonious assault and one count of the illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, he did so under the influence of marijuana. He later appealed his conviction on two grounds, with one being that he did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily enter his plea.

  

Judge Lewis wrote the opinion of the appellate court that upheld the judgment of the trial court.

  

The court found that Connelly’s admitted use of marijuana on the day of his plea hearing is not alone an indication that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent.

  

 

T.O. v. T.G., 2024-Ohio-4510 

After an incident at the University of Dayton between two students, one student (the Petitioner) applied for a sexually oriented offense civil protection order against the other student (the Respondent).

  

The trial court in this case dissolved the grant of a civil protection order, due to their belief that the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the Respondent would present “immediate and present danger” to the Petitioner and that the Petitioner had failed to provide testimony about the current need for a civil protection order.

  

Judge Lewis wrote the opinion of the appellate court that reversed the judgment of the trial court because the trial court incorrectly added requirements to their assessment that went far beyond those laid out by the Legislature in the Ohio Revised Code. It is the opinion of Judge Lewis that it is the purview of the Legislature to determine the requirements in these instances, not the Court.