green
Positive treatment
Issue: Smith motionOH ↗
Issue: situation ruleOH ↗
Issue: Tenth District analysisOH ↗
Issue: existence of plain errorOH ↗
11.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State ex rel. Mobarak v. Brown
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Shalash, 148 Ohio St.3d 611, 2016-Ohio-8358, 71 N.E.3d 1089, at ¶ 13.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ross
See State v. Cooper , 170 Ohio App.3d 418 , 2007-Ohio-1186 , 867 N.E.2d 493 , ¶ 31 (4th Dist.) ("The defendant carries the burden to establish the existence of plain error, unlike the situation in a claim of harmless error, where the burden lies with the state"). {¶ 15} After Ross filed his appellate brief the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the Tenth District's analysis in Smith, supra , and reversed the judgments in Mohammad and Mobarak, supra. See State v. Shalash , 148 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2016-Ohio-8358 , 71 N.E.3d 1089 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Hand
v.
Hand
No. 2015-0652.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Dec 27, 2016.
Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew T. French, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee., Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Sheryl Trzaska, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Connor, Donnell, French, Kennedy, Lanzinger, Neill, Pfeifer.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
{¶ 1} This cause is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.
O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Kennedy, J., dissents. Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew T. French, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Sheryl Trzaska, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.