green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
34.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2008 ·
…t is not ineffective assistance to request a psi where the record does not rebut the presumption that counsel acted reasonably.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…underrepresentation on a single venire is not systematic exclusion
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Roberson
it is not ineffective assistance for a trial lawyer to maneuver within the existing law, declining to present untested or rejected legal theories
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Fannin
hile the children could not answer every question posed, the transcript indicates they were in fact able to receive, recollect, and communicate impressions of fact, and appreciate the responsibility to be truthful
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Johnson
(2×)
underrepresentation on a single venire is not systematic exclusion
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Hartley
defense counsel is not required to advance arguments lacking merit.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Sowell v. Collins
(2×)
t is not ineffective assistance to request a psi where the record does not rebut the presumption that counsel acted reasonably.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hart
Rebuttal evidence is that which “explain[s], refute[s], or disproves new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party.” State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 446 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re X.G.
“A finding of plain error is strictly limited, extremely rare, and occurs only in exceptional circumstances.” In re M.G., 2023- Ohio-1316, ¶ 34 (12th Dist.). {¶40} The purpose of calling a rebuttal witness is to “explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party.” State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 446 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hall
Under the third part of the test, a defendant “must do more than show that his particular panel was unrepresentative.” State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 , 339–41 (2001); State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 444 (1998) (“underrepresentation on a single venire is not systematic exclusion” [emphasis in original]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Burke
Burke, however, did not — at the trial below or here on appeal — argue or “produce evidence demonstrating that African–Americans were underrepresented on the venire in relation to their percentage in the community.” State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 444 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Glaeser
Legal Standard {¶81} The purpose of calling a rebuttal witness is to “explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party . . . .’” Howton, 2017-Ohio-4349, ¶ 23 , quoting State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 446 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Powell
McNeil, 83 Ohio St.3d at 446. {¶26} The trial court denied Ms. Powell’s motion based solely on the conclusion that there has been “lots and lots and lots of expert testimony in this matter.” Under these circumstances, however, Ms. Powell had an “unconditional right” to present rebuttal testimony.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers
“Rebutting evidence is [evidence] given to explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party; it becomes relevant only to challenge the evidence offered by the opponent, and its scope is limited by such evidence.” State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 446, 700 N.E.2d 596 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jamii
Thus, “ ‘the term “while” means that the death must occur as part of acts leading up to, or occurring during, or immediately subsequent to the [relevant felony].’ ” Id., quoting Williams at 577 . “ ‘The sequence of events’ may be ‘examined in light of time, place, and causal connection’ to determine whether it ‘amounts to “one continuous occurrence.” ’ ” Id., quoting State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 441 (1998), quoting State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 23 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Rittinger
“Relevant evidence” “means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00009 18 determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” {¶60} With regard to allowing rebuttal evidence, this Court recognizes: “Rebutting evidence is that given to explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party; it becomes relevant only to challenge the evidence offered by the opponent, and its scope is limited by such evidence.” State v. Mc…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hasan v. Ishee
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that “his claims were not supported by existing law at the time of the trial, and counsel had no duty to press ‘untested or rejected legal theories.’” Sanders, 92 Ohio St. 3d at 275 , quoting State v. McNeill 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 449 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peo v. Houser
Thus, “[c]ourts should strive to ensure that ineffectiveness claims not become so burdensome to defense counsel that the entire criminal justice system suffers as a result.” Id. at 697 . ¶ 37 For this reason, an attorney may perform effectively by choosing “to maneuver within the existing law, declining to present untested or rejected legal theories.” State v. McNeill, 700 N.E.2d 596, 607 (Ohio 1998); see Bailey v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1260, 1265 (Ind. 1985) (holding that counsel is not ineffective if he or she fails 17 to “change then-existing law”); see also Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re K.G.
This Court disagrees. {¶11} This Court recognizes: “Rebutting evidence is that given to explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party; it becomes relevant only to challenge the evidence offered by the opponent, and its scope is limited by such evidence.” State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 446 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re K.G.
This Court disagrees. {¶14} This Court recognizes: “Rebutting evidence is that given to explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party; it becomes relevant only to challenge the evidence offered by the opponent, and its scope is limited by such evidence.” State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 446 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peo v. Houser
“While defense attorneys need not predict every new development in the law, ‘they are obliged to make [ ] argument[s] that [are] sufficiently foreshadowed in existing case law.’” Id. (quoting Shaw, 721 F.3d at 916-17 ). ¶ 32 Thus, an attorney performs effectively by choosing “to maneuver within the existing law, declining to present untested or rejected legal theories.” State v. McNeill, 700 N.E.2d 596, 607 (Ohio 1998); see Bailey v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1260, 1265 (Ind. 1985) (holding that counsel is not ineffective if he or she fails to “change then-existing law”); see also Eng…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ross
(4×)
No. 1-99-87, 2000 WL 1344559 (Sept. 19, 2000), citing State v. Hymore , 9 Ohio St.2d 122 , 128, 224 N.E.2d 126 (1967) (" 'Admission of rebuttal testimony is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and its judgment will not be reversed absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion with attendant material prejudice to the defendant.' "); McNeill at 446, 700 N.E.2d 596 ("It is within the trial court's discretion to determine what evidence is admissible as proper rebuttal."). {¶ 27} The state sought to present Lyons's testimony to rebut Ross's claims that he did not make t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mendoza
Vol. I at 247.) {¶ 63} The Supreme Court has held that "[r]ebutting evidence is that given to explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party; it becomes relevant only to challenge the evidence offered by the opponent, and its scope is limited by such evidence." State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 446 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Iakobets
Dr. Steiner testified that temporary brittle bone disease does not exist and that E.I.’s injuries can only be explained by violent shaking. 3 {¶6} “Rebutting evidence is that given to explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party; it becomes relevant only to challenge the evidence offered by the opponent, and its scope is limited by such evidence.” State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 446 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ward
(Emphasis added.) State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 443-444 (1998). {¶19} Before this court is the trial court’s assertion that the jury selection process is random and computerized and is monitored by the trial court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Garcia
Garcia’s unsubstantiated claims as to under-representation, pointing solely to his own jury venue, do not demonstrate any systematic exclusion over time. {¶35} In Fulton, the Ohio Supreme Court further stated that: “[a] defendant may also reasonably bring a federal equal protection challenge to the selection and composition of the petit jury by adducing statistical evidence which shows a significant discrepancy between the percentage of a certain class of people in the community and the percentage of that class on the jury venires, which evidence tends to show discriminatory purpose, an e…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wright
State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d at 446 (citation omitted). {¶ 31} In this matter, Wright called two alibi witnesses, Corinthia McShann and Sabrina Jordan.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Johnson
“The sequence of events” may be “examined in light of time, place, and causal connection” to determine whether it “amounts to ‘one continuous occurrence.’ ” McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d at 441, 700 N.E.2d 596 , quoting Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d at 23 , 544 N.E.2d 895 . {¶ 57} The evidence presented in this case supports a finding that Daniel’s murder occurred sometime between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m., on August 15, 2003.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Brinkley
See, e.g., State v. Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 335 , 2002-Ohio-6658 , 780 N.E.2d 186 ; State v. Murphy (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 547 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (deprived childhood, remorse); State v. Smith (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 323, 338 , 731 N.E.2d 645 (21-year-old defendant, deprived childhood, “psychotic episodes”); Baston, 85 Ohio St.3d at 430-431 , 709 N.E.2d 128 (20-year-old defendant, neglected in childhood, remorse); McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d at 453-454, 700 N.E.2d 596 (troubled upbringing, 19-year-old defendant, “borderline intelligence”); State v. Raglin (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 253, 270 , 699 N.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Seaford v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
(D) The parties then shall be confined to rebutting evidence, unless the court for good reasons, in the furtherance of justice, permits them to offer evidence in their original cases. {¶ 51} As one court noted, “The purpose of a rebuttal witness is to ‘explain, refute or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party.’ State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 446 [ 700 N.E.2d 596 ].
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
John R. Hicks v. Terry Collins, Warden
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Since this limitation is an Ohio rule of procedure rather than a constitutional argument, see id. at 606, it provides no habeas relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Boddie, Unpublished Decision (9-6-2001)
Penny Co . (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 31 , 33-36 . 21 State v. Henness (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 53 , 60 . 22 Id . 23 Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 576. 24 State v. Loza (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 61 , 78 . 25 State v. Grant (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 465 , 482 ; State v. Liberatore (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 583 , 589 . 26 State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 111 . 27 State v. Moore (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 137 , 143 . 28 State v. Treesh (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 460 , 464 ; citing State v. Smith (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 13 , 15 . 29 State v. Landrum (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 107 , 112 . 30 State v. Bey (1999), 85 Ohi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mayer, Unpublished Decision (12-18-2000)
In sustaining McNeill's conviction, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated, "In determining the competence of a child witness, the trial court must consider the child's ability to receive, recall, and communicate accurate impressions of fact, understand truth and falsity, and appreciate the responsibility to tell the truth." Id. at 442 , 700 N.E.2d at 603 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Stallings
See, e.g., Baston, 85 Ohio St.3d at 430-431 , 709 N.E.2d at 138-139 (twenty year old, neglected childhood, remorse); State v. Sheppard (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 230, 240-241 , 703 N.E.2d 286 , 296 (eighteen year old, diagnosed “paranoid schizophrenic,” no prior criminal history); McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d at 453-454 , 700 N.E.2d at 610-611 (troubled upbringing, nineteen year old, borderline intelligence); State v. Raglin (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 253 , 699 N.E.2d 482 (troubled upbringing, eighteen year old, mental problems); State v. Benge (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 136 , 661 N.E.2d 1019 (troubled upbring…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Stallings
(2×)
See, e.g., Baston, 85 Ohio St.3d at 430-431 , 709 N.E.2d at 138-139 (twenty year old, neglected childhood, remorse); State v. Sheppard (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 230, 240-241 , 703 N.E.2d 286 , 296 (eighteen year old, diagnosed “paranoid schizophrenic,” no prior criminal history); McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d at 453-454, 700 N.E.2d at 610-611 (troubled upbringing, nineteen year old, borderline intelligence); State v. Raglin (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 253 , 699 N.E.2d 482 (troubled upbringing, eighteen year old, mental problems); State v. Benge (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 136 , 661 N.E.2d 1019 (troubled upbringi…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Crannell
See State v. Harris, 560 N.W.2d 672, 677 (Minn. 1997); State v. McNeill, 700 N.E.2d 596, 603 (Ohio 1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Pethtel, Unpublished Decision (9-21-1999)
McNeill, supra at 452.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Osie (Slip Opinion)
(4×)
See State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d at 453 , 700 N.E.2d 596 , citing Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 973-980 , 114 S.Ct. 2630 , 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994). {¶ 241} Osie argues that Ohio's death-penalty scheme provides constitutionally inadequate appellate review of the proportionality and appropriateness of the death sentence.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gutierrez
(2×)
See State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d at 443, 700 N.E.2d 596 (upholding a trial court's determination that two children were competent to testify even though they were unable to answer every question asked.) {¶17} Throughout the trial process and continuing with this appeal, Gutierrez has attempted to label A.P. as someone who has a serious problem with lying.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Fry
(4×)
See State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438, 442-443 , 700 N.E.2d 596 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Reinhardt, 08ca0012-M (3-23-2009)
(2×)
See State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438 , 443 . {¶ 5} In this case, the trial court conducted a voir dire of K.R. after clearing the courtroom of spectators.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Reed, 08ap-20 (11-20-2008)
See State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438 . {¶ 66} Appellant also argues R.C. 2921.331 (C)(5)(b) is unconstitutional because it violates Blakely and Booker as it requires the court, not the jury, to consider the enumerated factors.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Crum, Unpublished Decision (9-18-2007)
(2×)
See State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438 , 449 , 700 N.E.2d 596 . {¶ 11} A review of the transcript shows the Appellant's counsel below adopted a strategy that involved asking few questions on cross-examination.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Copp, Unpublished Decision (9-18-2007)
(2×)
See State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438 , 449 , 700 N.E.2d 596 . {¶ 10} The Appellant claims he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to elicit sufficient testimony from Sergeant Large regarding his previous arrest of the Appellant.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Lytle, 06ca2916 (7-10-2007)
(2×)
See State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438 , 449 , 700 N.E.2d 596 . {¶ 6} A review of the transcript shows the Appellant's counsel below adopted a strategy that did not include the testimony of the Appellant.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hairston, Unpublished Decision (9-25-2006)
See Duren, 439 U.S. at 366 . "[U]nderrepresentation on a single venire is not systematic exclusion." (Emphasis omitted.) State v. McNeil (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438 , 444 . {¶ 27} Additionally, the United States Supreme Court granted the States "much leeway in [the] application [of the fair cross-section principle].
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. King, Unpublished Decision (7-18-2006)
(2×)
See State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438 , 442 , 700 N.E.2d 596 ; State v. Adamson (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 431 , 434 , 650 N.E.2d 875 . {¶ 10} Appellant contends that nothing in the record indicates that the trial court held a hearing to determine D.G.'s competency as a witness. 3 Even if a hearing was in fact conducted, appellant continues, no record of it exists, nor has the court provided specific findings to explain why it determined D.G. to be competent.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hayslip, Unpublished Decision (6-15-2006)
(2×)
See State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438 , 449 , 700 N.E.2d 596 . {¶ 15} The Appellant argues that his trial counsel's failure to object to prejudicial and irrelevant testimony and exhibits throughout the duration of the trial was inexplicable and unreasonable, and ultimately denied him of a fair trial.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ferguson
(2×)
See State v. McNeill (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 438 , 453, 700 N.E.2d 596 , citing Tuilaepa v. California (1994), 512 U.S. 967, 973-980 , 114 S.Ct. 2630 , 129 L.Ed.2d 750 . {¶ 93} In his 15th proposition of law, Ferguson challenges the constitutionality of Ohio’s death-penalty proportionality review.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State ex rel. Wilson
v.
Industrial Commission of Ohio
v.
Industrial Commission of Ohio
No. 98-100.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Oct 28, 1998.
Becker, Reed, Tilton & Hastings and Dennis A. Becker, for appellant., Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Published
Citer courts: Ohio Court of Appeals (3) · S.D. Ohio (2)
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.