State v. Townsend, 552 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Townsend, 552 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2009 · …at the very least, an 'accomplice' must be a person indicted for the crime of complicity. ⚠ not in text
223 citation events (149 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Browning (ohioctapp, 2023-03-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Browning
Ohio Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St. 3d 114, 117-18 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 918 (1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Green v. State
Md. · 2017 · confidence medium
In Stojetz, id., the Supreme Court of Ohio reasoned that co-conspirators were not co-defendants because the defendant “was the only person charged in the indictment[.]” In Stojetz, id., the Court quoted State v. Wickline, 552 N.E.2d 913, 918 (Ohio 1990), in which, in turn, the Court quoted the following definition of “co-defendant” in Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979): “More than one defendant being sued in the same litigation; or, more than one person charged in same complaint or indictment with same crime.” (Emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William D. Wickline v. Betty Mitchell, Warden
6th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Wickline’s argument, noting that, unlike most cases, the record contained a statement of counsel’s strategy, which led the court to conclude that “the manner in which appellant was represented at the mitigation phase was the result of an informed and tactical strategy.” State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 925 (1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Clemons
Ohio · 1998 · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Brown (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 316-317 , 528 N.E.2d 523, 538 (“monster”); State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 121 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 921 (“Nazi”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Clemons
Ohio · 1998 · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Brown (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 316-317 , 528 N.E.2d 523, 538 (“monster”); State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 121 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 921 (“Nazi”).
cited Cited "see" State v. Whittle
Ohio Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d at 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; Baldwin, 1st Dist.
discussed Cited "see" State v. McConnell
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114,118 , 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990). {¶ 56} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to present witnesses on his or her own behalf and to use the power of the court to compel the -30- attendance of those witnesses, if necessary.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Johnson
unknown court · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990); State v. Wright, 2017-Ohio-1568 , 90 N.E.3d 162, ¶ 45 (1st Dist.); Thomas at ¶ 22-23. {¶31} Next, Johnson takes issue with the admission of testimony regarding the items that the police had recovered from Lane’s trash.
cited Cited "see" State v. Randle
Ohio Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Iacona , 93 Ohio St.3d 83 , 100, 752 N.E.2d 937 (2001), citing State v. Wickline , 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 116, 552 N.E.2d 913 , 917 (1990).
cited Cited "see" State v. Collier
Ohio Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990); State v. Baldwin, 1st Dist.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Thomas (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990); Hirsch, 129 Ohio App.3d at 309 , 717 N.E.2d 789 . {¶24} Thomas further contends that the trial court should not have allowed into evidence statements to the effect that police detectives told Lavender that Thomas was incarcerated, that he had been involved with two other shootings, and that he “was a bad dude.” Again, Thomas did not object to this testimony.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Cedeno
Ohio Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 , certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 908 , 111 S.Ct. 281 , 112 L.Ed.2d 235 ; State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 13 , 3 OBR 360, 444 N.E.2d 1332 . .
discussed Cited "see" Goff v. Bagley (2×)
6th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 918 (1990) (defining "accomplice" under a former version of § 2923.03(D) as a person who "at the very least ... [was] indicted for the crime of complicity"); State v. Lordi, 140 Ohio App.3d 561 , 748 N.E.2d 566, 572 (2000) (applying the Wickline accomplice definition to a later version of § 2923.03(D)); State v. Royce, Nos.
discussed Cited "see" Goff v. Bagley
6th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline, 552 N.E.2d 913, 918 (Ohio 1990) (defining “accomplice” under a former version of § 2923.03(D) as a person who “at the very least 14 On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 (1952), cited by Goff in his brief, does not change our analysis.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Perez (2×)
Ohio · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 118 , 552 N.E.2d 913 (“at the very least, an ‘accomplice’ must be a person indicted for the crime of complicity”).
cited Cited "see" State v. Green, 90092 (7-3-2008)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See *Page 7 State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Marshall, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2005)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; State v. Hirsch (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 294 , 717 N.E.2d 789 ; State v. Burrell, 1st Dist.
cited Cited "see" State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (5-11-2005)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; Hirsch, supra; Burrell, supra. We overrule Smith's sixth assignment of error.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Burrell, Unpublished Decision (1-7-2005)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; Hirsch, supra. We overrule Burrell's third assignment of error. {¶ 16} In his fourth assignment of error, Burrell contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, as a prior consistent statement, a taped statement Gardner had made to police.
cited Cited "see" State v. Mosley, Unpublished Decision (12-8-2004)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; Hirsch, supra; Doan, supra. Accordingly, we overrule Mosley's seventh assignment of error, and we affirm his conviction.
cited Cited "see" State v. Skatzes
Ohio · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114,119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Brundage, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2004)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226 , 227 , 448 N.E.2d 452 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Brundage, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2004)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226 , 227 , 448 N.E.2d 452 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Murrell, Unpublished Decision (11-3-2004)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226 , 448 N.E.2d 452 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Lynch
Ohio · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Boyles, Unpublished Decision (2-5-2003)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Harshaw, Unpublished Decision (7-10-2002)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226 , 448 N.E.2d 452 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Karasek, Unpublished Decision (5-24-2002)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See id., citing State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Wright, Unpublished Decision (5-22-2002)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 , 919-920 ; Echols, supra, at 704 , 716 N.E.2d at 747 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (12-06-2000)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 ; State v. Hirsch (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 294 , 717 N.E.2d 789 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Barfield, Unpublished Decision (9-10-1999)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 , 920 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Heard, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999) (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913 , 919-920 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Sizemore, Unpublished Decision (5-28-1999)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wickline, supra , at 112-120, 552 N.E.2d at 919 -920 . "[T]he plain error rule is to be applied with the utmost caution and invoked under exceptional circumstances, in order to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226 , 227 , 448 N.E.2d 452 , 453 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Hirsch
Ohio Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 120 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 920 , certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 908 , 111 S.Ct. 281 , 112 L.Ed.2d 235 ; Lowe, supra, 69 Ohio St.3d at 530-531 , 634 N.E.2d at 619 ; Soke, supra, 105 Ohio App.3d at 250 , 663 N.E.2d at 1001-1002 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Brown
Ohio Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d at 116 , 552 N.E.2d at 916-917 .
examined Cited "see" State v. Wogenstahl (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ohio · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wickline, supra, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 919-920 .
examined Cited "see" State v. Wogenstahl (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
unknown court · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wickline, supra, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 119-120 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 919-920 . {¶ 48} We agree with appellant that the prosecutor’s final closing argument was riddled with improper comments regarding the nature and circumstances of the offense.
cited Cited "see" State v. Scudder
Ohio · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 118 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 918 ; and State v. Lane (1976), 49 Ohio St.2d 77 , 3 O.O.3d 45 , 358 N.E.2d 1081 , paragraph two of the syllabus.
cited Cited "see" State v. Scudder
Ohio · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 118 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 918 ; and State v. Lane (1976), 49 Ohio St.2d 77 , 3 O.O.3d 45 , 358 N.E.2d 1081 , paragraph two of the syllabus.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Sowell
Ohio Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” United States v. Bagley (1985), 473 U.S. 667, 682 , 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481, 494 ; see State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Durr
Ohio · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St. 3d 114, 124 , 552 N.E. 2d 913, 923-924 ; State v. Buell, supra; State v. Maurer, supra; State v. Zuern, supra; State v. Jenkins, supra. Appellant argues that a reviewing court must make a separate finding that a lower court’s decision was not influenced by passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Jells
Ohio · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St. 3d 114, 124 , 552 N.E. 2d 913, 923-924 ; State v. Buell (1986), 22 Ohio St. 3d 124 , 22 OBR 203, 489 N.E. 2d 795 ; State v. Maurer, supra; State v. Zuern (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 56 , 512 N.E. 2d 585 ; State v. Jenkins, supra. Since appellant has not presented any compelling reason why we should now find the statute to be unconstitutional, we reject appellant’s fourteenth proposition of law.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Pitts
Ohio Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Where, however, the evidence is revealed in time for the defense to use it effectively at or before trial, no 17. constitutional violation has occurred.” State v. Barzacchini, 96 Ohio App.3d 440, 454 , 645 N.E.2d 137 (6th Dist.1994); see also State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 116 , 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990) (emphasizing that Brady applies to discovery of information after trial, and holding that because the records were presented during the trial, there was no Brady violation). {¶ 38} Here, the claimed knowledge that there were no reports or documents created by Janowiecki during the cou…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Bendolph
Ohio Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
The Due Process Clause may or may not be implicated, depending whether the evidence is disclosed "in time for its effective use at trial" and whether the timing of the disclosure otherwise "significantly impairs the fairness of the trial." Iacona , 93 Ohio St.3d 83 , 100, 752 N.E.2d 937 (2001), citing United States v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc. , 760 F.2d 527 , 532 (4th Cir.1985) ; see also State v. Wickline , 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 116, 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990). {¶ 50} Here, Bendolph's counsel's opening statement contained general statements that the jury should "keep in mind" the presumption of…
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Hawkins
Ohio Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 116 , 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990), citing United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); State v. Braun, 8th Dist.
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Thomas, Unpublished Decision (12-14-2006)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 117 , 552 N.E.2d 913 . {¶ 20} Generally, Crim.R. 16(B)(2) exempts police reports from discovery.
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Iacona
Ohio · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 117 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 917 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Iacona
Ohio · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 117 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 917 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Shoffner, Unpublished Decision (3-17-1999)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
R. 16 because he was granted immunity from prosecution) vacated on other grounds, (1978) 439 U.S. 811 , 58 L.Ed2d 103 , 99 S.C. 70 ; See also, State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 118 , 552 N.E.2d 913 , 918 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Stepp
Ohio Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 118 , 552 N.E.2d 913, 918-919 , quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (5 Ed.1979) 16.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Townsend
No. 89-267.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Apr 11, 1990.
552 N.E.2d 913
1990 Ohio LEXIS 149
John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Mary A. Haas, for appellant., Sanford I. Atkin, for appellee.
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Nick, Res, Sweeney, Wright.
Published

Lead Opinion

This appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Res-nick, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., dissents.

Dissent

Holmes, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and I would overrule State v. Dick (1971), 27 Ohio St. 2d 162, 56 O.O. 2d 101, 271 N.E. 2d 797.