30 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2025 8 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. Sarkozygreen2 sentences2024Id. at ¶ 15, citing State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 , 2008-Ohio-509 , 881 N.E.2d 1224, ¶ 22 (holding that a failure to mention postrelease control where the defendant was subject to a mandatory five years of postrelease control was a complete failure to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11). {¶25} When consecutive sentences are statutorily required, the consecutive sentence is a necessary component of the “maximum sentence” advisement which is required under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). 2023The court observed: “ ‘A complete failure to comply’ with a non-constitutional requirement of Crim.R. 11 occurs when the court makes ‘no mention’ of the requirement.” Id, supra, at ¶ 26, quoting Dangler, at ¶ 15, citing State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 , 2008-Ohio-509 , 881 N.E.2d Washington App. No. 22CA24 20 1224 (In case involving complete failure to mention post-release control). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences1984In order to determine whether a non-constitutional error has affected the accused’s substantial rights, a “reviewing court must read the record, disregarding the objectionable material, and then determine whether or not there was ‘substantial’ evidence of the appellant’s guilt before it affirms or reverses the judgment of the trial court.” State v. Davis (1975), 44 Ohio App. 2d 335 [ 73 O.O.2d 395 ], paragraph three of the *124 syllabus. 1984In order to determine whether a non-constitutional error has affected the accused’s substantial rights, a “reviewing court must read the record, disregarding the objectionable material, and then determine whether or not there was ‘substantial’ evidence of the appellant’s guilt before it affirms or reverses the judgment of the trial court.” State v. Davis (1975), 44 Ohio App. 2d 335 [ 73 O.O.2d 395 ], paragraph three of the *124 syllabus. | 3 | 7 |
State v. Cowansgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Davis (1975), 44 Ohio App.2d 335 , 346–348, 73 O.O.2d 395 , 401–402, 338 N.E.2d 793 , 802–803, Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0069 22 citing State v. Cowans (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 96 , 104, 39 O.O.2d 97 , 103, 227 N.E.2d 201 , 207. 2023See State v. Davis (1975), 44 Ohio App.2d 335 , 346–348, 73 O.O.2d 395 , 401–402, 338 N.E.2d 793 , 802–803, Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0069 22 citing State v. Cowans (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 96 , 104, 39 O.O.2d 97 , 103, 227 N.E.2d 201 , 207. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hoodgreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., State v. Hood, 2012-Ohio-6208, ¶ 43 (error in the admission of evidence is harmless when the remaining evidence, standing alone, is overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt); State v. Ceron, 2013-Ohio-5241, ¶ 102 (8th Dist.) (erroneous admission of other-acts evidence was harmless when substantial other evidence supported the guilty verdict); State v. Cody, 2002-Ohio-7055 , ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (“A non-constitutional error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is harmless if substantial other evidence supports the verdict.”). {¶ 49} Having concluded that the trial court did not a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cerongreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., State v. Hood, 2012-Ohio-6208, ¶ 43 (error in the admission of evidence is harmless when the remaining evidence, standing alone, is overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt); State v. Ceron, 2013-Ohio-5241, ¶ 102 (8th Dist.) (erroneous admission of other-acts evidence was harmless when substantial other evidence supported the guilty verdict); State v. Cody, 2002-Ohio-7055 , ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (“A non-constitutional error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is harmless if substantial other evidence supports the verdict.”). {¶ 49} Having concluded that the trial court did not a | 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. Webb
green
2 sentences2022Id. at ¶ 51, citing State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325, 335 , 638 N.E.2d 1023 23 Case No. 2021-L-018 (1994). 2022Id. at ¶ 51, citing State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325, 335 , 638 N.E.2d 1023 23 Case No. 2021-L-018 (1994). | 3 | 2010–2022 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2007A court faced with a constitutional error can only be considered harmless if the appellate court can `declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 , 24 . 2007A court faced with a constitutional error can only be considered harmless if the appellate court can "declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 , 24 . | 3 | 2006–2007 |
Silcott v. Dahlberg
green
2 sentences2018He makes two primary arguments in this regard, one of which is based upon a constitutional challenge, the other of which is based upon the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51 (1990), which is a non-constitutional challenge.1 See State v. 1 While Mr. Chapman’s assignment of error is captioned solely as a challenge to the constitutionality of the community-control condition, his argument as it relates to Jones is non- constitutional and will be analyzed accordingly. 2018He makes two primary arguments in this regard, one of which is based upon a constitutional challenge, the other of which is based upon the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51 (1990), which is a non-constitutional challenge.1 See State v. 1 While Mr. Anderson’s assignment of error is captioned solely as a challenge to the constitutionality of the community-control condition, his argument as it relates to Jones is non- constitutional and will be analyzed accordingly. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Smith v. Leis
green
2 sentences2018Further, we must first decide whether his non-constitutional argument is dispositive, as “courts decide constitutional issues only when absolutely necessary.” Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309 , 2005-Ohio-5125 , ¶ 54; Talty II at ¶ 9 (addressing the non- constitutional challenge to a community-control condition under Jones first to determine whether it was dispositive). 2018Further, we must first decide whether his non-constitutional argument is dispositive, as “courts decide constitutional issues only when absolutely necessary.” Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309 , 2005-Ohio-5125 , ¶ 54; Talty II at ¶ 9 (addressing the non- constitutional challenge to a community-control condition under Jones first to determine whether it was dispositive). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Dixon
neutral
2 sentences2012A non-constitutional error is harmless when there is substantial other evidence to support the guilty verdict.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Id. {¶60} The state presented substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict beyond the other-acts evidence. 2011A non-constitutional error is harmless when there is substantial other evidence to support the guilty verdict.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Dixon, 2010-Ohio-5032, ¶ 42 . {¶ 24} In this case, there was substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict beyond the other-acts evidence. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Webb
green
2 sentences2010State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325, 335 , 1994-Ohio-425 , 638 N.E.2d 1023 . 2010State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325, 335 , 1994-Ohio-425 , 638 N.E.2d 1023 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Dangler (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2020-Ohio-2765 , 164 N.E.3d 286, at ¶ 14-15 . {¶60} Here, the trial court did not fully comply with a non-constitutional requirement under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). 2023Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2020-Ohio-2765 , 164 N.E.3d 286, at ¶ 14-15 . {¶60} Here, the trial court did not fully comply with a non-constitutional requirement under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Bankston
green
1 sentence2019Montgomery No. 24192, 2011-Ohio-6486, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hawkins
green
1 sentence2014Greene No. 2012-CA-49, 2013-Ohio-2572, at ¶ 9 . {¶ 15} We held that this duty is “a non-constitutional requirement of Crim.R. 11,” 7 which would require a finding only of “substantial compliance.” Id. at ¶ 12. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Murphy
green
1 sentence2011“A non-constitutional error is harmless when there is substantial other evidence to support the guilty verdict.” Id. {¶65} At trial, Deal testified that she overheard Osman stating that he wanted to rob William Evans. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Strong
green
1 sentence2011“A non- constitutional error is harmless when there is substantial other evidence to support the guilty verdict.” Id. {¶97} Osman argues that the evidence of the origin of the .22 Marlin and tying that .22 Marlin to Boler was irrelevant to the present case. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Stewart
green
1 sentence2008State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86 , 93 . *Page 5 Thus, the court does need not to state exactly the effect of the plea. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Francis
green
1 sentence2008State v. Francis , 104 Ohio St.3d 490 , 2004-Ohio 6894 , 820 N.E.2d 355 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2008"Thus, for a no contest plea, a defendant must be informed that the plea of no contest is not an admission of guilt but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint, and that the plea or admission shall not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding." State v. Jones , 116 Ohio St.3d 211 , 2007-Ohio-6093 , ¶ 23 . {¶ 10} Because this is a non-constitutional requirement, the court needs only substantially to comply with this rule. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Keenan
green
1 sentence2005State v. Keenan (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 133 , 142 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.