Court Rulings

Following a retrial, Defendant, William Eugene Moon, was convicted by a Coffee County jury of attempted second degree murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony and sentenced to an effective sixteen-year sentence to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter; that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a written request for the jury instruction before the jury began its deliberation; that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements; and that Defendant was denied a speedy trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); R.C. 4112.02; reverse race discrimination; reverse sex discrimination; similarly situated employees; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; intentional infliction of emotional distress; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; Ohio Const., art. I, § 16; breach of contract. The plaintiff-appellant, a white male, was employed by the defendant-appellee for approximately eight years. While employed, appellant was disciplined multiple times during his tenure. Appellant sued appellee, raising a number of claims. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee with respect to appellant's claims concerning reverse race discrimination, reverse sex discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of contract. Appellant failed to meet his burden in showing a prima facie case of race discrimination. Appellant did, however, present a prima facie case of sex discrimination. But even though appellant presented a prima facie case of reverse sex discrimination, appellee present a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for appellant's termination. Appellant failed to present evidence demonstrating that appellee's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual. Appellee had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and legally justifiable reason to terminate appellant, and therefore appellant failed to demonstrate that appellee's termination of his employment was "extreme and outrageous." Appellant also failed to present any evidence that he suffered "severe and debilitating injury" as a result of his termination. He failed to present any expert opinion or lay person testimony concerning any significant changes in his emotional or habitual make-up. The only evidence he presented with respect to his "injury" is only his own claims. As such, appellant failed to support his prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. With respect to appellant'