defendant forfeits any privilege (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

defendant forfeits any privilege in Ohio

5 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2022 1 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Steffengreen
ohio · 1987 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2011–2022
2 sentences

2022See, e.g., State v. Steffen, 31 Ohio St.3d 111, 115 (1987) ("a privilege once granted may be revoked. * * * * Under the circumstances of this case, even assuming lawful initial entry, the jury was justified in inferring from the evidence that appellant's privilege to remain in [the] home terminated the moment he commenced his assault"); State v. Cutts, 5th Dist. No. 2008CA00079, 2009-Ohio-3563 , ¶ 181 ("Where a defendant commits an offense against a person in the person's private dwelling, the defendant forfeits any privilege, becomes a trespasser, and can be culpable for aggravated burglary."

2020See, e.g., State v. Steffen, 31 Ohio St.3d 111, 115 , 509 N.E.2d 383 (1987). {¶23} In the case at bar, Hillary has not challenged her conviction for assault.

34
State v. Wisecup, Unpublished Decision (10-25-2004)green
ohioctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012Clermont No. CA2004-02-014, 2004-Ohio-5652, ¶ 10-11 (“Where a defendant commits an offense against a person in the person’s private dwelling, the defendant forfeits any privilege, becomes a trespasser and can be culpable for burglary. * * * Assuming, arguendo, an initial lawful entry, appellant’s privilege to remain terminated upon the commencement of his conduct constituting gross sexual imposition.” (Emphasis sic.)); State v. Lattire, 12th Dist.

11
State v. Lattire, Unpublished Decision (10-25-2004)green
ohioctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012Butler No. CA2004-01-005, 2004-Ohio-5648, ¶ 29 (“Appellant maintains that [the victim] extended an invitation to ‘come down.’ However, when appellant attacked [the victim], the action committed withdrew any invitation to ‘come down’ that appellant may have received. * * * Any rational trier of fact can infer the privilege to remain on the premises was terminated when appellant threw a punch at [the victim]’s nose.”). –11– also his bedroom, at an early hour of the morning, some time before 7:00.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.11 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.02 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 9 (2015–2024) OH 5 (2011–2022) IL 5 (2000–2025) NY 4 (1989–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check