green
Positive treatment
Issue: prejudicial errorOH ↗
Issue: record reflects defenseOH ↗
Issue: Witt standardOH ↗
Issue: deny defenseOH ↗
Quoted verbatim 4×
24.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2018–2019 ·
…absent objection, the error will not affect the sentence unless it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been otherwise without the error.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…de facto abrogation or modification of the right itself.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…if aggravation and mitigation are in equipoise, the jury must recommend a sentence of life imprisonment
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Nicholson
(2×)
once lawfully inserted into the sentencing considerations, such information is subject to fair comment by both parties
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Calhoun
absent objection, the error will not affect the sentence unless it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been otherwise without the error.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Graham
absent objection, the error will not affect the sentence unless it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been otherwise without the error.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Neyland (Slip Opinion)
(2×)
if aggravation and mitigation are in equipoise, the jury must recommend a sentence of life imprisonment
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ewert v. Holzer Clinic, Inc.
Morrison is directly on point and is binding law: “Venue is a procedural matter.” Morrison at 88 . {¶15} Moreover, the discussion in State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 245 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 395 (1988) bolsters the conclusion that we deal with a procedural matter here.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Reynolds
(2×)
See People v. Oswald, 188 Mich.App. 1 , 469 N.W.2d 306, 309-10 (1991); State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 395-96 (1988); State v. Nelson, 18 Wash.App. 161 , 566 P.2d 984, 986 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ladd
This is true even if the authority is shared with another and the complaining party was in police custody at the time.” State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 240 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 391 (1988) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paul W. Greer v. Betty Mitchell, Warden
(2×)
State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 236-37 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 387-88 (Ohio 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Anderson
State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 253 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 402 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Rice
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 243 , 530 N.E.2d 382 ; State v. Hartford (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 29, 31 , 486 N.E.2d 131 .); State v. Hootman, 5th Dist.
cited
Cited "see"
Dick v. Koski Prof. Group
Accord State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St. 3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988). 25 See, Conn. Mut.
cited
Cited "see"
Dick v. Koski Prof. Group
Accord State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St. 3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988). 25 See, Conn. Mut.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Jones
(3×)
See State v. Greer , 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 245, 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988) ; see also Rivera , 556 U.S. at 158 -161 , 129 S.Ct. 1446 , 173 L.Ed.2d 320 (holding that if "a defendant is tried before a qualified jury composed of individuals not challengeable for cause, the loss of a peremptory challenge due to a state court's good-faith error is not a matter of federal constitutional concern"). {¶ 23} In noncapital criminal cases, the right to peremptory challenges exists by virtue of Crim.R. 24, not by virtue of the federal or Ohio constitution.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Baskerville
See State v. Greer , 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 242-243, 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Premier Therapy, L.L.C v. Childs
See State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 245 , 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988) (“appellant utilized only five of the six peremptory challenges granted, and is therefore unable to demonstrate actual prejudice.”); Formis v. Calabrese, 7th Dist.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Davis, 2008-Ca-16 (12-23-2008)
See State v. Greer (1988) 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 ; State v. Moore (March 6, 2000), Stark App. No. 1999CA00126.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Nemethy, 06 Ca 159 (8-24-2007)
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 243 , 530 N.E.2d 382 ; State v. Hartford (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 29 , 31 , 486 N.E.2d 131 . {¶ 57} We further find that Appellant has failed to establish that but for the introduction of the testimony in question, the outcome of his trial would have been different.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hudson, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2003)
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 243 , 530 N.E.2d 382 ; State v. Hartford (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 29 , 31 , 486 N.E.2d 131 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Nields
See State v. Stojetz (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 452, 465 , 705 N.E.2d 329, 341-342 , citing State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 251 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 400 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Nields
See State v. Stojetz (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 452, 465 , 705 N.E.2d 329, 341-342 , citing State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 251 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 400 . {¶ 183} Defendant also contends that the prosecutor improperly converted mitigating factors (the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the history, character and background of defendant) into nonstatutory aggravating circumstances during closing argument.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Stojetz
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 251 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 400 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Dunlap
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 251 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 400 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Dunlap
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 251 , 530 N.E.2d 382 , 400.
cited
Cited "see"
In re Coy
See, generally, State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 245-246 , 530 N.E.2d 382 , 395-396, and State v. Boston (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 115 , 545 N.E.2d 1220, 1228, fn. 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
In re Coy
See, generally, State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 245-246 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 395-396 , and State v. Boston (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 115 , 545 N.E.2d 1220, 1228, fn. 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Richey
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 254 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 402-403 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Richey
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 254 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 402-403 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sneed
See United States v. Matlock, supra, 415 U.S. at 171 , 94 S.Ct. at 993 , 39 L.Ed.2d at 249-250 . “ * * * [W]hen the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent, it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.” This court had the opportunity to review a similar issue in State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 , certiorari denied (…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mills
(2×)
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 244-246 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 394-396 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Smith
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 244 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 394 ; State v. Landrum, supra, 53 Ohio St.3d at 111 , 559 N.E.2d at 717 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Landrum
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 236 , 530 N.E. 2d 382 , paragraph three of the syllabus.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hutton
See State v. Greer, supra, at 248 , 530 N.E. 2d at 397 (juror who during voir dire exhibited “considerable emotional difficulty” with recommending death penalty was “unsuitable” to serve as a juror).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lawrence
See State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 236, 244 , 530 N.E. 2d 382, 394 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hartman
See, also, State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 244 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 394 , applying the waiver rule to capital cases.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hartman
See, also, State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 244 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 394 , applying the waiver rule to capital cases. {¶ 51} The admission of defendant’s knives rested upon a question of relevancy.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Treesh
We summarily reject appellant’s sixth proposition of law (number of peremptory challenges) on the authority of State v. Mills (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 365 , 582 N.E.2d 972, 981 ; see, also, State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 , paragraph two of the syllabus.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Treesh
We summarily reject appellant’s sixth proposition of law (number of peremptory challenges) on the authority of State v. Mills (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 365 , 582 N.E.2d 972, 981 ; see, also, State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 , paragraph two of the syllabus.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bays
See, e.g., State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 ; State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626 , 653 N.E.2d 675 ; State v. Hill, supra, 73 Ohio St.3d 433 , 653 N.E.2d 271 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bays
See, e.g., State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 ; State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626 , 653 N.E.2d 675 ; State v. Hill, supra, 73 Ohio 27 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO St.3d 433, 653 N.E.2d 271 . {¶ 125} Based upon the foregoing, we find the death sentence in this case to be appropriate and proportionate. {¶ 126} The judgment of the court of appeals, upholding Bays’s convictions and death sentence, is affirmed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State Ex Rel. Novak v. Carroll, Unpublished Decision (9-2-1999)
See, e.g., State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 530 N.E.2d 382 , paragraph 2 of the syllabus (R.C. 2945.21 (A) (2) is of no further force or effect because it is a law in conflict with Crim.R. 24 (C) regarding the number of peremptory challenges to jurors); State v. Brown (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 305 , 528 N.E.2d 523 , paragraph 1 of the syllabus (Crim.R. 6 (A) controls the number of grand jurors needed to issue an indictment and supersedes R.C. 2939.02 and 2939.20 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Garner
See, e.g., State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 245-246 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 395-396 ; State v. Carter, supra. In addition, Garner was not denied the opportunity to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges, nor impermissibly limited in his voir-dire questioning of prospective jurors.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Garner
See, e.g., State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 245- 246, 530 N.E.2d 382, 395-396 ; State v. Carter, supra. {¶ 59} In addition, Garner was not denied the opportunity to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges, nor impermissibly limited in his voir-dire questioning of prospective jurors.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Layman
v.
Binns
v.
Binns
No. 87-124.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Nov 9, 1988.
Pratt, Hemm & Kindell and Robert A. Pratt, for appellees., Faust, Harrelson, Fulker & McCarthy and John E. Fulker, for Robert A. Pratt., H. Fred Hoefle and Rodger N. Walk, for appellants.
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright.
Published
Citer courts: Ohio Supreme Court (4) · Ohio Court of Appeals (2)
This cause came on for further consideration upon the request of Robert A. Pratt, attorney for plaintiffs-appéllees, for a clarification of the order of this court in the above-styled case, dated August 31, 1988. Upon consideration thereof, it is the intention of the court to assess liability for the payment of garnisheed funds only to parties to the action before the court or to any person holding funds in trust for plaintiffs-appellees. (See [1988], 35 Ohio St. 3d 176, 519 N.E. 2d 642.)
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.