jury followed instruction in Ohio

29 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1997–2024 6 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 (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Beemangreen ohio · 1995 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2020 2 sentences 2020See State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 , 2012-Ohio-5695 , 983 N.E.2d 1278, ¶ 23 , citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995); Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 195 , 559 N.E.2d 1313 (1990). {¶41} We therefore find appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel and his first assignment of error is overruled. 2020See State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995); State v. Bell, 2015-Ohio-1711 , 34 N.E.3d 405 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.).	3	5
Pang v. Minchgreen ohio · 1990 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2007–2024 2 sentences 2024See, e.g., Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186 , 559 N.E.2d 1313 (1990), paragraph four of the syllabus (“A presumption always exists that the jury has followed the instructions given to it by the trial court.”). 2024See, e.g., Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186 , 559 N.E.2d 1313 (1990), paragraph four of the syllabus (“A presumption always exists that the jury has followed the instructions given to it by the trial court.”).	2	5
State v. Garnergreen ohio · 1995 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2013–2020 2 sentences 2020See State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 , 2012-Ohio-5695 , 983 N.E.2d 1278, ¶ 23 , citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995); Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 195 , 559 N.E.2d 1313 (1990). {¶41} We therefore find appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel and his first assignment of error is overruled. 2020See State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995); State v. Bell, 2015-Ohio-1711 , 34 N.E.3d 405 , ¶ 21 (1st Dist.).	2	3
State v. Lozagreen ohio · 1994 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See State v. Loza (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 75 , 641 N.E.2d 1082 . 2002See State v. Loza (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 75 , 641 N.E.2d 1082 .	2	3
State v. Nicholsgreen ohioctapp · 2020 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024No. 19AP-113, 2020-Ohio-4362, ¶ 28 (where the trial court instructs the jury that closing arguments are not evidence, a reviewing court presumes the jury followed that instruction and that the verdict is not based on the content of the closing arguments), citing State v. Fudge, 10th Dist. 2024No. 19AP-113, 2020-Ohio-4362, ¶ 28 (where the trial court instructs the jury that closing arguments are not evidence, a reviewing court No. 23AP-274 26 presumes the jury followed that instruction and that the verdict is not based on the content of the closing arguments). {¶ 70} The second allegedly improper statement to which Khalif points occurred when the prosecutor commented on Khalif’s proficiency with firearms.	2	2
State v. Williamsgreen ohio · 2012 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2020 2 sentences 2020See State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 , 2012-Ohio-5695 , 983 N.E.2d 1278, ¶ 23 , citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995); Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 195 , 559 N.E.2d 1313 (1990). {¶41} We therefore find appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel and his first assignment of error is overruled. 2020See State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 , 2012-Ohio-5695 , 983 N.E.2d 1278, ¶ 23 , citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995); Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 195 , 559 N.E.2d 1313 (1990). {¶41} We therefore find appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel and his first assignment of error is overruled.	2	2
State v. Wilsongreen ohio · 1972 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See State v. Wilson (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 199, 204 , 59 O.O.2d 220, 223 , 283 N.E.2d 632, 636 . 1997See State v. Wilson (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 199, 204 , 59 O.O.2d 220, 223 , 283 N.E.2d 632, 636 .	2	2
State v. Treeshgreen ohio · 2001 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2002–2015 2 sentences 2015See State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 480 , 2001-Ohio-4 , 739 N.E.2d 749 . 2002State v. Treesh (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 460 , 480 , 2001-Ohio-4 ; State v. Loza (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 61 , 75 , 1994-Ohio-409 .	1	2
State v. Treeshgreen ohio · 2001 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2002–2015 2 sentences 2015See State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 480 , 2001-Ohio-4 , 739 N.E.2d 749 . 2015See State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 480 , 2001-Ohio-4 , 739 N.E.2d 749 .	1	2
State v. Perezgreen ohio · 2009 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024See State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 , 2009-Ohio-6179 , 920 Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00018 13 N.E.2d 104 , ¶ 103 ("The jury is presumed to follow the trial court's instructions"), and State v. Davis, 2015-Ohio-889 , 31 N.E.3d 1204 , ¶ 54 (5th Dist.) ("It is well-established that juries are presumed to follow and obey the limiting instructions given them by the trial court"). {¶33} Upon review, we find the cell phone warrant failed to contain sufficient particularity with regard to the digital evidence regarding offenses related to firearms, and the good faith exception to the exclu 2024See State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 , 2009-Ohio-6179 , 920 Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00018 13 N.E.2d 104 , ¶ 103 ("The jury is presumed to follow the trial court's instructions"), and State v. Davis, 2015-Ohio-889 , 31 N.E.3d 1204 , ¶ 54 (5th Dist.) ("It is well-established that juries are presumed to follow and obey the limiting instructions given them by the trial court"). {¶33} Upon review, we find the cell phone warrant failed to contain sufficient particularity with regard to the digital evidence regarding offenses related to firearms, and the good faith exception to the exclu	1	1
State v. Leonardgreen ohio · 2004 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018See, e.g., *423 State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 157.	1	1
State v. Kirkland (Slip Opinion)green ohio · 2014 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2014-Ohio-1966 (finding the second prong of the three-part Williams test fulfilled where the jury was given a similar limiting instruction regarding prior acts testimony). {¶ 47} Third, the probative value of the other acts evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 2017See State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2014-Ohio-1966 (finding the second prong of the three-part Williams test fulfilled where the jury was given a similar limiting instruction regarding prior acts testimony). {¶ 47} Third, the probative value of the other acts evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.	1	1
United States v. James R. Downing, Samuel Ward, Daniel Druckergreen ca2 · 2002 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Moreover, the jury was instructed that it could consider the plea allocutions only as evidence that the conspiracy existed, and we may presume that the jury followed this instruction, see United States v. Downing, 297 F.3d 52, 59 (2d Cir.2002).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Raglin green ohio · 1998 2 sentences 2008The elements must be proven by the State of Ohio." (T. at 135). {¶ 37} Because the jury is presumed to follow the trial court's instructions, State v. Raglin (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 253 , 264 , we presume that the jury followed this instruction in its deliberations and based its conviction upon the evidence alone. {¶ 38} We further find that Appellant has not demonstrated, but for this statement, that the outcome of the trial would have been different. {¶ 39} Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled III. {¶ 40} In his third assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court er 2008Because the jury is presumed to follow the trial court's instructions, State v. Raglin (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 253 , 264 , we presume that the jury followed this instruction in its deliberations and based its conviction upon the evidence alone. {¶ 264} We additionally note that appellant's trial counsel failed to object to many of the state's closing remarks.	4	2008–2008
State v. Fudge green ohioctapp · 2018 1 sentence 2024No. 16AP-821, 2018-Ohio-601, ¶ 52 . {¶ 37} Lastly under this assignment of error, Abdullahi argues the prosecutor acted improperly by telling the jury not to “get wrapped up in beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Tr.	1	2024–2024
State v. LaMar green ohio · 2002 1 sentence 2023A reviewing court will “ordinarily presume that the jury followed such an instruction by the court.” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128 , 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 92 .	1	2023–2023
State v. LaMar green ohio · 2002 2 sentences 2023A reviewing court will “ordinarily presume that the jury followed such an instruction by the court.” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128 , 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 92 . 2023A reviewing court will “ordinarily presume that the jury followed such an instruction by the court.” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128 , 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 92 .	1	2023–2023
State v. Smith green ohio · 1984 2 sentences 2021State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 , 2012-Ohio-5677 , 984 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 194 , quoting State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 584 , 605 N.E.2d 884 (1992).2 2 Appellant argued that the general instruction was not sufficient, citing to Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 15 , 470 N.E.2d 883 . 2021State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 , 2012-Ohio-5677 , 984 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 194 , quoting State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 584 , 605 N.E.2d 884 (1992).2 2 Appellant argued that the general instruction was not sufficient, citing to Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 15 , 470 N.E.2d 883 .	1	2021–2021
State v. Murphy green ohio · 1992 2 sentences 2021State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 , 2012-Ohio-5677 , 984 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 194 , quoting State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 584 , 605 N.E.2d 884 (1992).2 2 Appellant argued that the general instruction was not sufficient, citing to Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 15 , 470 N.E.2d 883 . 2021State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 , 2012-Ohio-5677 , 984 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 194 , quoting State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 584 , 605 N.E.2d 884 (1992).2 2 Appellant argued that the general instruction was not sufficient, citing to Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 15 , 470 N.E.2d 883 .	1	2021–2021
State v. Jones green ohio · 2012 2 sentences 2021State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 , 2012-Ohio-5677 , 984 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 194 , quoting State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 584 , 605 N.E.2d 884 (1992).2 2 Appellant argued that the general instruction was not sufficient, citing to Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 15 , 470 N.E.2d 883 . 2021State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 , 2012-Ohio-5677 , 984 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 194 , quoting State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 584 , 605 N.E.2d 884 (1992).2 2 Appellant argued that the general instruction was not sufficient, citing to Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 15 , 470 N.E.2d 883 .	1	2021–2021
State v. Mammone (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2014 2 sentences 2015State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2014-Ohio-1942, ¶ 147 . {¶ 50} Furthermore, assuming the jury did find Bennett's testimony credible, such was its prerogative. 2015State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2014-Ohio-1942, ¶ 147 . {¶ 50} Furthermore, assuming the jury did find Bennett's testimony credible, such was its prerogative.	1	2015–2015
State v. Ahmed green ohio · 2004 1 sentence 2012State v. Ahmed, 103 Ohio St.3d 27, 42 , 813 N.E.2d 637 (2004). {¶35} Upon review of the record we find any error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	1	2012–2012
State v. Jalowiec green ohio · 2001 1 sentence 2011Pang v. Minch (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 186 , paragraph four of the syllabus.” {¶58} It is well settled when jurors see a defendant in custody, there is no need for a new trial when the encounter was “brief, inadvertent, and outside the courtroom.” State v. Jaloweic (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 220 ; State v. Linkous, Licking App. No. 08CA51, 2009-Ohio-1896 . {¶59} While we do not find the testimony relative to Appellant’s transportation in a cruiser equivalent to appearing at trial in prison attire, we will nonetheless address Delaware County, Case No. 10CAA110088 10 Appellant’s argument assuming, argue	1	2011–2011
State v. Linkous, 08ca51 (4-22-2009) neutral ohioctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2011Pang v. Minch (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 186 , paragraph four of the syllabus.” {¶58} It is well settled when jurors see a defendant in custody, there is no need for a new trial when the encounter was “brief, inadvertent, and outside the courtroom.” State v. Jaloweic (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 220 ; State v. Linkous, Licking App. No. 08CA51, 2009-Ohio-1896 . {¶59} While we do not find the testimony relative to Appellant’s transportation in a cruiser equivalent to appearing at trial in prison attire, we will nonetheless address Delaware County, Case No. 10CAA110088 10 Appellant’s argument assuming, argue	1	2011–2011
State v. Garner green ohio · 1995 1 sentence 2009State v. Garner , 74 Ohio St.3d 49 , 59 , 1995-Ohio-168 . {¶ 33} Appellant claims that the $344 that the police found on him was less than the $2,000 that Qabie estimated was taken.	1	2009–2009
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2008We disagree. Page 9 {¶ 36} The standard for reviewing claims for ineffective assistance of counsel was set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . 2008We disagree. Page 9 {¶ 36} The standard for reviewing claims for ineffective assistance of counsel was set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .	1	2008–2008
State v. Wilson green ohio · 1996 1 sentence 2006Elko, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on flight. {¶ 40} Hamilton's fifth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 41} In his sixth assignment of error, Hamilton argues that "the court erred in diluting the requirement of purpose in its jury instructions." This assignment of error lacks merit. {¶ 42} Hamilton bases his argument on State v. Wilson, 74 Ohio St.3d 381 , 1996-Ohio-103 , in which the court held that the "gist of the offense" instruction for purpose is confusing. {¶ 43} As explained by this court in State v. Bailey, Cuyahoga App. N	1	2006–2006
State v. Wilson green ohio · 1996 1 sentence 2006Elko, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on flight. {¶ 40} Hamilton's fifth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 41} In his sixth assignment of error, Hamilton argues that "the court erred in diluting the requirement of purpose in its jury instructions." This assignment of error lacks merit. {¶ 42} Hamilton bases his argument on State v. Wilson, 74 Ohio St.3d 381 , 1996-Ohio-103 , in which the court held that the "gist of the offense" instruction for purpose is confusing. {¶ 43} As explained by this court in State v. Bailey, Cuyahoga App. N	1	2006–2006
State v. Elko, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2004) green ohioctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2006Elko, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on flight. {¶ 40} Hamilton's fifth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 41} In his sixth assignment of error, Hamilton argues that "the court erred in diluting the requirement of purpose in its jury instructions." This assignment of error lacks merit. {¶ 42} Hamilton bases his argument on State v. Wilson, 74 Ohio St.3d 381 , 1996-Ohio-103 , in which the court held that the "gist of the offense" instruction for purpose is confusing. {¶ 43} As explained by this court in State v. Bailey, Cuyahoga App. N	1	2006–2006
State v. Loza green ohio · 1994 1 sentence 2002State v. Treesh (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 460 , 480 , 2001-Ohio-4 ; State v. Loza (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 61 , 75 , 1994-Ohio-409 .	1	2002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.03 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2905.01 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.02 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.04 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 (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 290 (1935–2026) TX 158 (1988–2026) WA 37 (1951–2025) CO 33 (1919–2025) OH 29 (1997–2024) PA 20 (1935–2026) TN 19 (1983–2022) AZ 17 (1986–2026) CT 15 (1981–2025) ID 15 (1999–2022) VA 15 (1990–2023) IL 14 (1894–2025) MI 14 (1965–2024) WI 13 (1996–2026) MO 13 (1959–2019) MA 11 (1950–2026) KS 10 (1985–2024) NJ 10 (1991–2026) IN 8 (1968–2026) MS 8 (1983–2018) ME 5 (1941–2019) GA 5 (2017–2023) OK 5 (1926–2025) NY 5 (1961–2017) MT 5 (1929–2022) NC 4 (1951–1991) WY 4 (1987–2020) RI 4 (1978–2013) MD 3 (1977–2009) SD 3 (1991–2024) MN 3 (2014–2016) DC 3 (1990–2022) NM 3 (1981–2020) NH 2 (2003–2013) ND 2 (1960–1993) IA 2 (1928–2014)

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