Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
42 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2025Jury Question {¶57} In his third assignment of error, Edwards contends that when the jury asked “if the victim says sex was consensual and non-threatening, could it still be considered rape?” the trial court erred and abused its discretion by answering, “that issue is for your [the jury’s] determination.” {¶58} “‘Where, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request.’” State v. Williams, 2002-Ohio-6919 , ¶ 35 (11th PAGE 22 OF 30 Case No. 2024-T 2025See, e.g., State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 93-97 (1978); State v. Owens, 2020-Ohio-4616, ¶ 7 ; Crim.R. 30(A) and 52(B). {¶ 62} Further, “where, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request.” State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 553 (1995). | 7 | 41 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2013Mr. Brofford believes the trial court’s refusal to give an answer that “it agreed was correct,” constituted an abuse of discretion. {¶28} In State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 1995-Ohio-104 , paragraph one of the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that, “[w]here, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request.” In Carter, as in this case, the jury had asked a question requesting further explanation and clarification of the jury instruct 2008State v. Hull , Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 2, 2005-Ohio-1659 , ¶ 44 ; see, also, Sabina v. Kress , Clinton App. No. CA2006-01-001, 2007-Ohio-1224 , ¶ 13 , citing Hartman and Hull . {¶ 32} "[W]here, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request." State v. Carter , 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 . | 2 | 7 |
Sabina v. Kress, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2007)green2 sentences2008State v. Hull , Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 2, 2005-Ohio-1659 , ¶ 44 ; see, also, Sabina v. Kress , Clinton App. No. CA2006-01-001, 2007-Ohio-1224 , ¶ 13 , citing Hartman and Hull . {¶ 32} "[W]here, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request." State v. Carter , 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 . 2008Further, the court did not give any instruction regarding unrelated evidence of sexual contact. {¶ 38} "Where, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request." Sabina v. Kress , Clinton App. No. CA2006-01-001, 2007-Ohio-1224 , ¶ 14 , citing State v. Carter , 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Longgreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 93-97 (1978); State v. Owens, 2020-Ohio-4616, ¶ 7 ; Crim.R. 30(A) and 52(B). {¶ 62} Further, “where, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request.” State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 553 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Leegreen2 sentences2016Greene No. 2005 CA 150, 2007–Ohio–1345, ¶ 87, quoting State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995), paragraph one of the syllabus. “ ‘A reversal of a conviction based upon a trial court's response to such a request requires a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.’ ” Id., quoting Carter at 553 . {¶ 60} An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “[A]n abuse of discretion most commonly arises from a decision that 2016Greene No. 2005 CA 150, 2007–Ohio–1345, ¶ 87, quoting State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995), paragraph one of the syllabus. “ ‘A reversal of a conviction based upon a trial court's response to such a request requires a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.’ ” Id., quoting Carter at 553 . {¶ 60} An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “[A]n abuse of discretion most commonly arises from a decision that | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hartmangreen1 sentence2007See id. {¶ 14} "Where, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request." See State v. Carter , 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 ; see, also, State v. Kersey (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 513 , 520 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kerseygreen1 sentence2007See id. {¶ 14} "Where, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request." See State v. Carter , 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 ; see, also, State v. Kersey (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 513 , 520 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
2 sentences2016Greene No. 2005 CA 150, 2007–Ohio–1345, ¶ 87, quoting State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995), paragraph one of the syllabus. “ ‘A reversal of a conviction based upon a trial court's response to such a request requires a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.’ ” Id., quoting Carter at 553 . {¶ 60} An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “[A]n abuse of discretion most commonly arises from a decision that 2016Greene No. 2005 CA 150, 2007–Ohio–1345, ¶ 87, quoting State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995), paragraph one of the syllabus. “ ‘A reversal of a conviction based upon a trial court's response to such a request requires a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.’ ” Id., quoting Carter at 553 . {¶ 60} An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “[A]n abuse of discretion most commonly arises from a decision that | 2 | 2003–2016 |
State v. Owens (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2025See, e.g., State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 93-97 (1978); State v. Owens, 2020-Ohio-4616, ¶ 7 ; Crim.R. 30(A) and 52(B). {¶ 62} Further, “where, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request.” State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 553 (1995). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Carter, Unpublished Decision (1-5-2004)
neutral
1 sentence2021Coshocton No. 02 CA 028, 2004-Ohio-39 , ¶ 48: When a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court may exercise its discretion in determining the appropriate response. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2017Cuyahoga No. 103184, 2016-Ohio-3058 , 65 N.E.3d 287 , ¶ 39, quoting State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 , 490 N.E.2d 906 (1986). {¶30} Finally, Springer argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to timely object to the trial court’s response to a jury question regarding the definition of felony murder. {¶31} When a jury requests further instruction or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court may exercise its discretion in determining the appropriate response. 2017Cuyahoga No. 103184, 2016-Ohio-3058 , 65 N.E.3d 287 , ¶ 39, quoting State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 , 490 N.E.2d 906 (1986). {¶30} Finally, Springer argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to timely object to the trial court’s response to a jury question regarding the definition of felony murder. {¶31} When a jury requests further instruction or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court may exercise its discretion in determining the appropriate response. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Heineman
green
1 sentence2017Cuyahoga No. 103184, 2016-Ohio-3058 , 65 N.E.3d 287 , ¶ 39, quoting State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 , 490 N.E.2d 906 (1986). {¶30} Finally, Springer argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to timely object to the trial court’s response to a jury question regarding the definition of felony murder. {¶31} When a jury requests further instruction or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court may exercise its discretion in determining the appropriate response. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Schafer v. Rms Realty
green
2 sentences2016Greene No. 2005 CA 150, 2007–Ohio–1345, ¶ 87, quoting State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995), paragraph one of the syllabus. “ ‘A reversal of a conviction based upon a trial court's response to such a request requires a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.’ ” Id., quoting Carter at 553 . {¶ 60} An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “[A]n abuse of discretion most commonly arises from a decision that 2016Greene No. 2005 CA 150, 2007–Ohio–1345, ¶ 87, quoting State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995), paragraph one of the syllabus. “ ‘A reversal of a conviction based upon a trial court's response to such a request requires a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.’ ” Id., quoting Carter at 553 . {¶ 60} An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “[A]n abuse of discretion most commonly arises from a decision that | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Lindsey
green
2 sentences2014When “a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of an instruction previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request.” State v. Lindsey, 87 Ohio St.3d 479 , 721 N.E.2d 995 (2000). 2014When “a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of an instruction previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request.” State v. Lindsey, 87 Ohio St.3d 479 , 721 N.E.2d 995 (2000). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Baker, Ca2007-09-018 (10-27-2008)
green
1 sentence2013No. CA2007-09-018, 2008-Ohio-5544, ¶ 32 , citing State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 553 (1995). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Hull, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2005)
neutral
1 sentence2008State v. Hull , Mahoning App. No. 04 MA 2, 2005-Ohio-1659 , ¶ 44 ; see, also, Sabina v. Kress , Clinton App. No. CA2006-01-001, 2007-Ohio-1224 , ¶ 13 , citing Hartman and Hull . {¶ 32} "[W]here, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request." State v. Carter , 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
West v. Newberry
green
1 sentence2004State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 , certiorari denied (1995), 516 U.S. 1014 , 116 S.Ct. 575 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hansley v. United States
green
1 sentence2004State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 , certiorari denied (1995), 516 U.S. 1014 , 116 S.Ct. 575 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Taniguchi
neutral
1 sentence2001In State v. Carter (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 545 , paragraph one of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court held: "Where, during the course of its deliberations, a jury requests further instruction, or clarification of instructions previously given, a trial court has discretion to determine its response to that request." In the case sub judice , the court relied on State v. Taniguchi (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 592 , 596 , for the proposition that a defendant's face and body are physical evidence and commentary may be made on a defendant's demeanor in the courtroom. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.