green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…find the mitigating factor in r.c. 2929.04(b)(4) (youth) entitled to little weight, since ballew was twenty-two at the time of the offense
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion)
(2×)
find the mitigating factor in r.c. 2929.04(b)(4) (youth) entitled to little weight, since ballew was twenty-two at the time of the offense
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Biros, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Margaret Bagley, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee
Biros, 678 N.E.2d at 906 (citing State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 379 (1996)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Biros v. Bagley
Biros, 678 N.E.2d at 906 (citing State v. Ballew, 667 N.E.2d 369, 379 (Ohio 1996)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Coley
Cf. State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 250 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 377 (victim abducted and taken to remote location).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Coley
Cf. State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 250 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 377 (victim abducted and taken to remote location). {¶ 58} The evidence supports the jury’s finding that when Coley and Green arrived at this dead-end alley, Coley personally shot El-Okdi between the eyes, execution style, and thus was the principal offender.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. White
State v. Grant (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 486 , 620 N.E.2d 50, 71 ; but, cf., State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 257 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 382 (age of twenty-two entitled to little weight).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. White
State v. Grant (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 486 , 620 N.E.2d 50, 71 ; but, cf., State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 257 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 382 (age of twenty-two entitled to little weight).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Strange
Accord State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 255 , 667 N.E.2d 369 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Neal
See State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 254 , 667 N.E.2d 369 (1996); State v. Harriel, 1st Dist.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Maxwell
(2×)
See State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 253 , 667 N.E.2d 369 (1996) (failure to raise a Batson challenge constituted waiver). {¶ 92} In raising a J.E.B. challenge, “a party alleging gender discrimination must make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination before the party exercising the challenge is required to explain the basis for the strike.” J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 144-145 , 114 S.Ct. 1419 , 128 L.Ed.2d 89 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Woodruff
Accord State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 255 , 667 N.E.2d 369 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Jeffrey
Accord State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 255 , 667 N.E.2d 369 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Harp, 07ca848 (7-23-2008)
See State v. Ballew , 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 255 , 1996-Ohio-81 , 667 N.E.2d 369 ("Here, the prosecutor did not err by arguing that Coffey was a principal to these offenses, that his testimony was incredible and contrary to other witnesses, and that the jury should not lose sight of the evidence."). {¶ 28} Finally, we have reviewed the State's closing arguments in its entirety, and we do not believe that the prosecutor's comments, taken together, deprived Harp of a fair trial.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hand
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d at 256-257 , 667 N.E.2d 369 . {¶ 242} Finally, Hand argues that his counsel were deficient in presenting his unsworn statement because Hand’s plea for a life sentence focused on his ability to serve as a model inmate.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cunningham
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 256-257 , 667 N.E.2d 369 . {¶ 102} Failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hoffner
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 256-257 , 667 N.E.2d 369 . {¶ 44} Hoffner also challenges defense counsel’s cross-examination of the state’s witnesses.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Dixon
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 256-257 , 667 N.E.2d 369 . {¶ 58} Dixon has provided no basis for concluding that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation or that any different tactical choices would have made any difference in the jury’s verdict in view of the strong evidence of guilt, including his confession to the murder.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jenkins, Unpublished Decision (2-5-2003)
See State v. Ballew , 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 255 , 1996-Ohio-81 , 667 N.E.2d 369 , citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 142 , 538 N.E.2d 373 . {¶ 13} To satisfy the requirements of the Strickland test, the appellant must prove that his trial counsel's performance was deficient, and that his defense was somehow prejudiced by this deficiency.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brunett, Unpublished Decision (2-4-2003)
See State v. Ballew , 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 1996-Ohio-81 , 667 N.E.2d 369 , citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. at 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . {¶ 16} The Strickland test requires an appellant to prove, first, that his trial counsel was deficient, and, second, that this deficiency prejudiced his case.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. O'connell, Unpublished Decision (1-21-2003)
See State v. Ballew , 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 1996-Ohio-81 , 667 N.E.2d 369 , citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. at 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . {¶ 24} The Strickland test requires an appellant to prove, first, that his trial counsel was deficient, and, second, that this deficiency prejudiced his case.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Layne, Unpublished Decision (5-7-2002)
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 667 N.E.2d 369 , citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. at 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hansen, Unpublished Decision (5-7-2002)
See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 ; accord State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 255 , 667 N.E.2d 369 , 380 (adopting the Strickland analysis).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. McClellan, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2001)
See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 ; accord State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 255 , 667 N.E.2d 369 , 380 (adopting the Strickland analysis).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hartman
See State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 667 N.E.2d 369 ; State v. Joseph, 73 Ohio St.3d 450 , 653 N.E.2d 285 ; State v. Simko, 71 Ohio St.3d 483 , 644 N.E.2d 345 ; State v. Scudder (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 263 , 643 N.E.2d 524 ; State v. Fox, 69 Ohio St.3d 183 , 631 N.E.2d 124 ; State v. Jells (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 22 , 559 N.E.2d 464 ; and State v. Brewer (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 50 , 549 N.E.2d 491 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hartman
See State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 667 N.E.2d 369 ; State v. Joseph, 73 Ohio St.3d 450 , 653 N.E.2d 285 ; State v. Simko, 71 Ohio St.3d 483 , 644 N.E.2d 345 ; State v. Scudder (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 263 , 643 N.E.2d 524 ; State v. Fox, 69 Ohio St.3d 183 , 631 N.E.2d 124 ; State v. Jells (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 22 , 559 N.E.2d 464 ; and State v. Brewer (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 50 , 549 N.E.2d 491 . {¶ 205} Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s convictions and sentence of death.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Green
(2×)
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 256 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 381 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Green
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 256 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 381 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jenkins, Unpublished Decision (8-26-2000)
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 249 , 667 N.E.2d 369 , 376 ; State v. Loza (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 61 , 68 , 641 N.E.2d 1082 , 1095-1096 ; State v. Richey (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 353 , 364 , 595 N.E.2d 915 , 925 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Mason
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 256 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 381 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Mason
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 256 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 381 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Smith
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 249 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 376 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Smith
See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 249, 667 N.E.2d 369 , 376.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Clipps
See also State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 667 N.E.2d 369 (1996) (the prosecutor is entitled to some latitude in closing argument as to what the evidence presented has shown).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lynch
See also State v. Ballew , 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 667 N.E.2d 369 (1996) (the prosecutor is entitled to some latitude in closing argument as to what the evidence presented has shown). {¶ 37} The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the prosecutor's remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the accused.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lash
See also State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 667 N.E.2d 369 (1996) (the prosecutor is entitled to some latitude in closing argument as to what the evidence presented has shown). {¶57} Our review of the purportedly improper remarks in context shows that these remarks were neither insinuations nor personal beliefs, but rather reflect reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the testimony.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Durham
See, e.g., State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244 , 254, 1996-Ohio-81 , 667 N.E.2d 369 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McNeill
See, e.g., State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 253 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 378-379 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McNeill
See, e.g., State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 253 , 667 N.E.2d 369, 378-379 . {¶ 36} “The standard for determining whether a prospective juror may be excluded for cause due to his or her views on capital punishment is whether that prospective juror’s views would ‘ “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” ’ ” State v. Williams (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 5 , 679 N.E.2d 646, 653 , quoting Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581, 589 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sigmon
v.
Hatfield Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
v.
Hatfield Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
No. 95-774.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Aug 7, 1996.
Brown, Lippert, Heile & Evans and Marquette D. Evans, for appellees., Tailer, Ruttle & Walden and Christine D. Tailer, for appellant.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Ohio Supreme Court (2)
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the .authority of Cole v. Holland (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 220, 667 N.E.2d 353.
Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent. Stratton, J., not participating.