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.
5 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2008 0 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. Robertsongreen2 sentences2008State v. Robertson , 147 Ohio App.3d 94 , 101 , 2002-Ohio-494 , 768 N.E.2d 1207 . 2008State v. Robertson , 147 Ohio App.3d 94 , 101 , 2002-Ohio-494 , 768 N.E.2d 1207 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Woodruff, Unpublished Decision (9-15-2005)green2 sentences2007See State v. Woodruff , Cuyahoga App. No. 85026, 2005-Ohio-4808 ; State v. Thomas (Aug. 23, 2001), Franklin App. No. 00AP-1242; State v. Kendrick , (Sept. 30, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-1305; State v. Ayers , (Sept. 15, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97APA11-1556; see, also, State v. Condron (Mar. 27, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16430; State v. Hill , (May 21, 1999), Montgomery App. No. 17246. {¶ 13} Rosenburg's counsel raises several compelling and well-reasoned arguments that center on the view that the current classification process results in the inconsistent classification of similar offender 2007See State v. Woodruff , Cuyahoga App. No. 85026, 2005-Ohio-4808 ; State v. Thomas (Aug. 23, 2001), Franklin App. No. 00AP-1242; State v. Kendrick , (Sept. 30, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-1305; State v. Ayers , (Sept. 15, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97APA11-1556; see, also, State v. Condron (Mar. 27, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16430; State v. Hill , (May 21, 1999), Montgomery App. No. 17246. {¶ 13} Rosenburg's counsel raises several compelling and well-reasoned arguments that center on the view that the current classification process results in the inconsistent classification of similar offender | 1 | 1 |
Kokitka v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2003See Kokitka v. Ford Motor Co. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 89, 92 , 652 N.E.2d 671 . {¶ 10} We are in full agreement with the Third Appellate District that Static-99 test results, and their evaluation by expert testimony, should not be the sole basis for a sexual-predator adjudication. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crooksgreen2 sentences2003See, also, State v. Crooks, 152 Ohio App.3d 294 , 2003-Ohio-1546 , 787 N.E.2d 678, ¶ 13 . {¶ 7} Morales argues that the state’s expert witness offered conclusive evidence through clinical test results — specifically, the results of the Static-99 test— that he was not likely to reoffend. 2003See, also, State v. Crooks, 152 Ohio App.3d 294 , 2003-Ohio-1546 , 787 N.E.2d 678, ¶ 13 . {¶ 7} Morales argues that the state’s expert witness offered conclusive evidence through clinical test results — specifically, the results of the Static-99 test— that he was not likely to reoffend. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookyellow2 sentences2003Cook, supra, 83 Ohio St.3d at 426 , 700 N.E.2d 570 . {¶ 9} Morales argues that the Static-99 test results conclusively refuted the trial court’s finding, or any finding for that matter, that he was “likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses.” We reject the proposition that recidivism test results are binding upon the trial court. 2003Cook, supra, 83 Ohio St.3d at 426 , 700 N.E.2d 570 . {¶ 9} Morales argues that the Static-99 test results conclusively refuted the trial court’s finding, or any finding for that matter, that he was “likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses.” We reject the proposition that recidivism test results are binding upon the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Elie, Unpublished Decision (6-17-2004)
neutral
2 sentences2005State v. Elie, Cuyahoga App. No. 83169, 2004-Ohio-3127, at *7 . {¶ 29} The majority opinion references portions of the record which lean toward a finding of sexual predator, but it ignores the strong evidence supporting the court's ruling. 2005State v. Elie, Cuyahoga App. No. 83169, 2004-Ohio-3127, at *7 . {¶ 29} The majority opinion references portions of the record which lean toward a finding of sexual predator, but it ignores the strong evidence supporting the court's ruling. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Morales
green
1 sentence2004State v. Morales (2003), 153 Ohio App.3d 635 . {¶ 55} In this case, we find the trial court properly considered the defendant's results on the Static-99 and Abel test, coupled with the fact that there were multiple victims of tender years and an ongoing pattern of sexual misconduct, in designating the defendant to be a sexual predator. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Eppinger
green
1 sentence2004State v. Eppinger (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 158 , 167 , {¶ 54} Lastly, in a sexual predator adjudication hearing, the trial court is not bound by the results on the Static-99 test, which show that the defendant is at a comparatively low risk to re-offend; rather, the trial court is required to consider all the evidence and circumstances of the particular case under the statutory guidelines. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.