Ohio Sixth Appellate District: Releases 2026-Ohio-3604 State v. Baugh Ruling

• The Ohio Sixth Appellate District has issued a "Decision and Judgment" in the case 2026-Ohio-3604 State v. Baugh.
• The State of Ohio is the appellee, and Duane Baugh is the appellant in this case, which originated in Wood County.
• The appellate court case number is 87WD-25-075, following a trial court case numbered 2025 CR 0156.
• The provided information includes only the citation and caption, not the full text of the court's decision.
• Without the full decision, the specific legal issues, factual background, or the court's reasoning in *State v. Baugh* cannot be determined.

Without access to the full text of the decision, the specific legal issues, factual background, or the court's reasoning in *State v. Baugh* cannot be determined.

The Ohio Sixth Appellate District has issued a ruling in the case identified as 2026-Ohio-3604 State v. Baugh. This appellate action originates from Wood County, where the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, rendered its decision. The official document is categorized as a "Decision and Judgment," indicating a final resolution at the appellate level for the specific appeal brought before the court.

The parties involved in this appellate proceeding are the State of Ohio, which holds the position of appellee, and Duane Baugh, who is identified as the appellant. The appellate case bears the number 87WD-25-075, while the underlying trial court proceedings were designated with the number 2025 CR 0156. These identifiers confirm the progression of the case from a trial court in Wood County to the intermediate appellate court.

While the citation and party information are clear, the specific details regarding the factual background, the legal questions presented, or the court's reasoning and ultimate judgment in 2026-Ohio-3604 State v. Baugh are not available from the provided information. The document type, "Decision and Judgment," confirms that the appellate court has issued its final determination on the appeal, but the substance of that determination remains undisclosed.

The designation "2026-Ohio-3604" represents a neutral citation, a standardized format used in Ohio to identify judicial opinions. The year '2026' indicates when the decision was released, 'Ohio' signifies the jurisdiction, and '3604' is a sequential number assigned to the decision within that year. This system ensures consistent referencing of court documents across the state. The case falls under the purview of the Ohio Sixth Appellate District, which serves as an intermediate appellate court responsible for reviewing decisions from trial courts within its geographical jurisdiction, including Wood County.

In the context of an appeal, the State of Ohio, as the appellee, is the party against whom the appeal has been taken, typically having prevailed in the lower court. Conversely, Duane Baugh, as the appellant, is the party who initiated the appeal, seeking to overturn or modify the trial court's decision. The appellate court's role is to review the record of the trial court proceedings for legal errors, rather than conducting a new trial or re-evaluating facts.

The case numbers, 87WD-25-075 for the appellate court and 2025 CR 0156 for the trial court, provide a clear lineage for the legal action. The appellate number indicates its origin within the Sixth Appellate District (implied by 'WD' for Wood County within the Sixth District's numbering scheme, though '87' is the specific district identifier in the source text), the year of filing, and its sequence. The trial court number, 2025 CR 0156, suggests a criminal case ('CR') filed in 2025, further contextualizing the nature of the original proceedings that led to the appeal by Duane Baugh.

The existence of 2026-Ohio-3604 State v. Baugh confirms that an appellate review process has concluded in the Ohio Sixth Appellate District concerning a matter originating from Wood County. However, without access to the full text of the decision, the specific legal issues, factual background, or the court's reasoning cannot be determined. This limitation means that any potential legal precedent, statutory interpretations, or practical implications for legal professionals or compliance officers remain unknown.

While every appellate decision contributes to the body of case law, its specific impact is entirely dependent on its content. A "Decision and Judgment" could range from a routine affirmation of a lower court's ruling to a significant pronouncement on a novel legal question. The mere citation and caption, while essential for identifying the case, do not convey the substance necessary to understand its legal weight or relevance. Therefore, while the judicial process has clearly run its course for Duane Baugh appellant, the broader legal community cannot yet ascertain the specific takeaways from this particular ruling by the Wood County Court of Appeals.

This article provides only the citation and caption for *State v. Baugh*. Without the full text of the decision, it is not possible to identify any specific legal precedent, statutory interpretation, or practical implications for lawyers or compliance officers.

Source: Original reporting via court document