State v. Forrest, 136 Ohio St. 3d 134

Forrest was arrested after heroin and cocaine were found following a traffic stop in Columbus.
Forrest moved to suppress the evidence, and the trial court granted the motion for suppression.
A three-judge panel of the Tenth District affirmed the suppression ruling.
The state filed applications for reconsideration and en banc review; the panel reviewed the en banc application and denied it.
This Court granted discretionary review to address who may initially review en banc applications and whether an intradistrict conflict exists.
The court held that App.R. 26(A)(2) permits either a panel or the en banc court to determine whether an intradistrict conflict exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who may determine intradistrict conflicts	State argues only en banc court can review for conflict.	Forrest argues panel may review initial conflict determination.	Panel may conduct the initial conflict determination.
Effect of panel review on en banc authority	Panel review undermines en banc control over decisions.	Panel review does not strip en banc of ultimate authority to order review.	Panel review preserves en banc authority; conflict triggers en banc review if found.
Interpretation of App.R. 26(A)(2)(a)	Rule requires en banc court to decide conflicts.	Rule silent on who decides; panel may decide first.	Rule silent on initial reviewer; panel may determine initial conflict.

McFadden v. Cleveland State Univ., 120 Ohio St.3d 54 (2008-Ohio-4914) (en banc review aims to ensure uniformity and address conflicts)
DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 189 (1982) (courts have discretion over en banc procedures)
Kelley v. Ferraro, 2010-Ohio-4179 (8th Dist. No. 92446) (full-court review used for en banc determinations in some districts)
State v. Morris, 2010-Ohio-5973 (9th Dist. No. 09CA0022-M) (full-court review used for en banc determinations in some districts)