green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
12.0 score
“even assuming used davis's name, that would not affect the reliability of baker's identification.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Leonard v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary
But cf. State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 114-115 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 (holding that evidence that victim’s body was found naked, that victim had been seen pushing the defendant away before she was shot, and that there were possible finger marks on one of the victim’s thighs was insufficient evidence to support attempted-rape conviction).
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Leonard
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
But cf. State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 114-115 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 (holding that evidence that victim’s body was found naked, that victim had been seen pushing the defendant away before she was shot, and that there were possible finger marks on one of the victim’s thighs was insufficient evidence to support attempted-rape conviction).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Jerome Henderson, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Terry L. Collins, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee
See Scott v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 854, 873-76 (6th Cir. 2000) (discussing sentencing charge in Ohio capital case); but see Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 416-17 (6th Cir. 1999) (distinguished by Scott). 38 In State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St. 3d 107 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 (1996), the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed a challenge similar to the one advanced by petitioner respecting an acquittal first instruction.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. McCrary
even assuming used davis's name, that would not affect the reliability of baker's identification.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheppard v. Bagley
These observations were more than supported by the record and although closeness of Petitioner’s family and the love of Petitioner’s family for him might be deserving of some weight in mitigation under Ohio Supreme Court precedent, see, e.g., State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 438 , 848 N.E.2d 810, 836 (2006); State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231, 258 , 824 N.E.2d 959 , 988 (2005); State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 122 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1112 (1996), this Court cannot find that reasonable jurists would find the Ohio Supreme Court’s conclusions “so arbitrary, unsupported or offensiv…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wiley Davis, Jr. v. Betty Mitchell, Warden
(2×)
Each juror was made aware that he or she could prevent a death penalty recommendation by finding that the aggravating circumstances in the case do not outweigh the mitigating factors.... ” Id. at 1109.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Mitchell
State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 118 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1109 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Kirkland (Slip Opinion)
(2×)
See State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 115-116 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 (1996).2 Attempted Rape {¶ 135} The relevant definition of rape is “engag[ing] in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by 2 The state argues that “[p]hone records demonstrated the continued use of the phone after Casonya’s death,” thus suggesting that Kirkland had possession of the cell phone.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Royal
See, State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 (1996); State v. Doren, 6th Dist.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. West
See generally State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 112 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 (1996) (photographs in lineup need not be nearly identical). {¶22} As for framing, there is nothing of significance distinguishing one photograph from another.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Essa
See State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 118 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 . {¶ 122} Accordingly, appellant’s sixth assignment of error is overruled.
discussed
Cited "see"
Davie v. Mitchell
See State v. Davis, 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1109 (Ohio 1996) (distinguishing Brooks); see also Henderson v. Collins, 262 F.3d 615, 622 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Davis required the challenged instruction to be similar to the acquittal-first instruction struck down in Brooks before reversal of a capital sentence is warranted); cf. Williams v. Coyle, 260 F.3d 684, 702 (6th Cir. 2001) (rejecting Mills challenge to jury instructions similar to those in the instant case).
discussed
Cited "see"
Davie v. Mitchell
(2×)
See State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1109 (Ohio 1996) (distinguishing Brooks); see also Henderson v. Collins, 262 F.3d 615, 622 (6th Cir.2001) (noting that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Davis required the challenged instruction to be similar to the acquittal-first instruction struck down in Brooks before reversal of a capital sentence is warranted); cf. Williams v. Coyle, 260 F.3d 684, 702 (6th Cir.2001) (rejecting Mills challenge to jury instructions similar to those in the instant case).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. McKnight
See State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 117 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Montez, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2004)
See id. {¶ 12} Taylor argues that the photographic array shown to witnesses was impermissibly suggestive because not all of the individuals were the same age, not all of them had bushy hair, and two of the individuals were clean-shaven, while Taylor wore a mustache and a goatee. {¶ 13} "A defendant in a line-up need not be surrounded by people nearly identical in appearance." State v. Davis , 76 Ohio St.3d 107 , 1996-Ohio-414 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Lynch
See State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 111 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 . {¶ 38} We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense motion for a change of venue and overrule proposition XX. {¶ 39} Voluntariness.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Group
(2×)
See, generally, State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 116-118 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 . {¶128} Requested jury instruction No. 27 told the jury that the only guilt- phase evidence it could consider in the penalty phase was the evidence concerning the two aggravating circumstances: the attempted murder and the aggravated robbery.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Norman
Hildebrandt, P.J., and Gorman, J ., concur. 1 Accord State v. Edmondson , 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 328 , 715 N.E.2d 131 , 135 . 2 See State v. Edmondson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 328 , 715 N.E.2d 131 , 135 . 3 Accord State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d at 328 , 715 N.E.2d at 135 . 4 State v. Juarez (July 17, 1998), Hamilton App. No.C-970368, unreported, citing Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 5 State v. Combs (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 90 , 101 , 652 N.E.2d 205 , 211-212 , quoting Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993), 506 U.S. 364 , 370 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 844 . 6 See State v. Mill…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McNeill
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107,118 , 666 N.E.2d 1099,1109 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McNeill
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 118 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1109 . {¶ 41} During the penalty phase of the trial, McNeill presented the testimony of Darnel Haney, his “Big Brother,” in mitigation.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Taylor
See State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 116-118 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1108-1109 ; State v. Williams (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 153, 168 , 652 N.E.2d 721, 733-734 ; State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d at 213 , 15 OBR at 353, 473 N.E.2d at 307 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Taylor
See State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 116-118 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1108-1109 ; State v. Williams (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 153, 168 , 652 N.E.2d 721, 733-734 ; State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d at 213 , 15 OBR at 353, 473 N.E.2d at 307 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sipple
See, e.g., State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 (1996) (Finding the evidence insufficient to show attempted rape where the evidence showed the victim was shot by the defendant in a car, the victim was trying to push the defendant away “as if ‘she didn’t want to do something’ ” right before she was shot, the victim was nude when the defendant dumped her body from the car, and the forensic evidence showed there were possible finger marks on the victim’s thigh); State v. Mincy, 1st Dist.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hanna
See State v. Grant (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 478 , 620 N.E.2d 50 ; see, also, State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 120 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 ; State 32 January Term, 2002 v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 275 , 528 N.E.2d 542 , paragraph two of the syllabus.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hanna
See State v. Grant (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 478 , 620 N.E.2d 50 ; see, also, State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 120 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 ; State v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 275 , 528 N.E.2d 542 , paragraph two of the syllabus.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Yarbrough
Compare State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 111 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 . {¶94} On these facts, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a change of venue.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Yarbrough
Compare State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 111 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 . {¶ 94} On these facts, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a change of venue.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Henderson, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2002)
See, also, State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 . 3 Coleman v. Alabama (1970), 399 U.S. 1 , 5-6 , 90 S.Ct. 1999 , 2001 , 26 L.Ed.2d 387 , 394 . 4 Waddy , 69 Ohio St.3d at 439 588 N.E.2d at 831 , citing Neil , 409 U.S. at 199 -200 , 93 S.Ct. at 382 , 34 L.Ed.2d at 411 . 5 Crim.R. 29(A). 6 (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 . 7 See R.C. 2923.03 ; State v. Messer , 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5256 . 8 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 354 , (Feb. 3, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 75673, unreported. 9 State v. Coleman (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 286 , 525 N.E.2d 792 , syllabus at para. 2. 10 State v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Wellston v. Kerr, Unpublished Decision (5-1-2000)
See, e.g., State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107 , 666 N.E.2d 1099 ; State v. Jenkins (Mar. 14, 2000), Harrison App. No. 98-502-CA, unreported; State v. Dunaway (Feb. 18, 1997), Butler App. No. CA96-08-152, unreported; In re Burrell (Jan. 30, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 69961, unreported.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lindsey
See, e.g., State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 110 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1104 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lindsey
See, e.g., State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 110 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1104 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mason
See, e.g., State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 114 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1107 . {¶ 121} Second, the element of force was supported by evidence of a struggle in Robin’s car, and the fact that her jeans and panties were found pulled down below her knees.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mason
See, e.g., State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 114 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1107 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Keith
See, e.g., State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 110 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1104 ; State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 628 , 653 N.E.2d 675, 680 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Keith
See, e.g., State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 110 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1104 ; State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 628 , 653 N.E.2d 675, 680 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gillard
See, e.g., State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 110 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1104 ; State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 628 , 653 N.E.2d 675, 680 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gillard
See, e.g., State v. Davis (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 107, 110 , 666 N.E.2d 1099, 1104 ; State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 628 , 653 N.E.2d 675, 680 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Casas
v.
Casas
No. 96-679.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jul 24, 1996.
Dunn & Hare Co., L.P.A., and Kevin W. Dunn, for appellants.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Published
Citer courts: Ohio Court of Appeals (1)
Lead Opinion
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Dayton v. Erickson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 665 N.E.2d 1091.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.Dissent
Pfeifer, J.,
dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Dayton v. Erickson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 12, 665 N.E.2d 1091, 1098.