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.
153 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2024 2 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. Leonardgreen2 sentences2024When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2022When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “ ‘[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.ʼ ” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , -5- Case No. 1-21-16 2004-Ohio-6235 , ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. | 19 | 131 |
State v. Thompkinsred2 sentences2014State v. Freeman, 138 Ohio App.3d 408, 424 , 741 N.E.2d 566 (1st Dist.2000), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶20} In his third assignment of error, Nicholson argues that the city did not present sufficient evidence to convict him “of the generic OVI for ‘driving under the influence.’” Specifically, Nicholson argues that the city did not provide sufficient evidence that he was “appreciably impaired” as a result of alcohol consumption. {¶21} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after 2014State v. Freeman, 138 Ohio App.3d 408, 424 , 741 N.E.2d 566 (1st Dist.2000), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶20} In his third assignment of error, Nicholson argues that the city did not present sufficient evidence to convict him “of the generic OVI for ‘driving under the influence.’” Specifically, Nicholson argues that the city did not provide sufficient evidence that he was “appreciably impaired” as a result of alcohol consumption. {¶21} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after | 5 | 14 |
State v. Jenksred2 sentences2024When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2024When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. | 2 | 153 |
State v. Thompkinsgreen2 sentences2008State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 7} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, "the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 67 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , ¶ 77 , quoting State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus. 2008State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 5} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, "the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to *Page 3 the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 67 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , ¶ 77 , quoting State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Tarbaygreen2 sentences2013Relying on the Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, Kent contends that the definition of “solicit” requires, at the very minimum, that one “is asking for something.” He further contends that Ohio law does not criminalize the discussion of sex; instead “‘the harm is in the asking.’” State v. Tarbay, 157 Ohio App.3d 261 , 2004-Ohio-2721 , 810 N.E.2d 979, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Bolden, 2d Dist. 2013Relying on the Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, Kent contends that the definition of “solicit” requires, at the very minimum, that one “is asking for something.” He further contends that Ohio law does not criminalize the discussion of sex; instead “‘the harm is in the asking.’” State v. Tarbay, 157 Ohio App.3d 261 , 2004-Ohio-2721 , 810 N.E.2d 979, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Bolden, 2d Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hardygreen1 sentence2007The term "under the influence" means that "the defendant consumed some [alcohol], * * * in *Page 6 such a quantity, whether small or great, that it adversely affected and appreciably impaired the defendant's actions, reactions, or mental processes under the circumstances then existing * * *." 4 Ohio Jury Instructions 6, Section 545.25; see, also, State v. Hardy (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 89 ; State v. Harding , Montgomery App. No. 20801, 2006-Ohio-481 . {¶ 13} It is generally accepted that virtually any lay witness, including a police officer, may testify as to whether an individual appears intoxic | 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. Martin
green
2 sentences2011In conducting this review, we must examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the jury ‘ “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” ’ State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 , quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 20 OBR 215, 485 N.E.2d 717 .” Leonard at ¶ 81. {¶ 13} Weems was convicted of a violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), which provides that “[n]o person shall know 2011In conducting this review, we must examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the jury ‘ “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” ’ State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 , quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 20 OBR 215, 485 N.E.2d 717 .” Leonard at ¶ 81. {¶ 13} Weems was convicted of a violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), which provides that “[n]o person shall know | 3 | 2007–2011 |
Eastley v. Volkman
green
2 sentences2015His attorney stated as much at the pretrial hearing where the motion was dismissed, and the recordings of Smith’s interviews with the police, which he sought to suppress, clearly indicated that Smith was mirandized and informed of his rights and that he willingly spoke with the police. -11- Case No. 6-14-14 {¶25} The Ohio Supreme Court has “carefully distinguished the terms ‘sufficiency’ and ‘weight’ in criminal cases, declaring that ‘manifest weight’ and ‘legal sufficiency’ are ‘both quantitatively and qualitatively different.’ ” Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012–Ohio–2179, ¶ 10, 2014When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “ ‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004–Ohio–6235, ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶31} The Ohio Supreme Court has “carefully distinguished the terms ‘sufficiency’ and ‘weight’ in criminal cases, declaring that ‘manifest weight’ and -13- Case N | 2 | 2014–2015 |
State v. Getsy
green
2 sentences2011He makes the same argument for both, and thus, we will address them together. {¶ 11} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “ ‘[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 12} In reviewing a claim challenging 2011He makes the same argument for both, and thus, we will address them together. {¶ 11} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “ ‘[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 12} In reviewing a claim challenging | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Beck v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2014State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427 , 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000), citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223, 225 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). 2014State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427 , 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000), citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223, 225 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Freeman
green
2 sentences2014State v. Freeman, 138 Ohio App.3d 408, 424 , 741 N.E.2d 566 (1st Dist.2000), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶20} In his third assignment of error, Nicholson argues that the city did not present sufficient evidence to convict him “of the generic OVI for ‘driving under the influence.’” Specifically, Nicholson argues that the city did not provide sufficient evidence that he was “appreciably impaired” as a result of alcohol consumption. {¶21} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after 2014State v. Freeman, 138 Ohio App.3d 408, 424 , 741 N.E.2d 566 (1st Dist.2000), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶20} In his third assignment of error, Nicholson argues that the city did not present sufficient evidence to convict him “of the generic OVI for ‘driving under the influence.’” Specifically, Nicholson argues that the city did not provide sufficient evidence that he was “appreciably impaired” as a result of alcohol consumption. {¶21} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Homan
green
2 sentences2014State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427 , 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000), citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223, 225 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). 2014State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427 , 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000), citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223, 225 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences2013The only issue that Scott raises within this argument is that there was not sufficient evidence to identify him as one of the perpetrators of the crimes. {¶19} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), 2013The only issue that Scott raises within this argument is that there was not sufficient evidence to identify him as one of the perpetrators of the crimes. {¶19} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Sowry
green
2 sentences2008Cole cites to State v. Sowry , 155 Ohio App.3d 742 , 2004-Ohio-399 , in support of his position. {¶ 7} R.C. 2921.36 (A)(2) states that no person shall "knowingly convey, or attempt to convey, onto the grounds of a detention facility * * * any drug of abuse, as defined in section 3719.011 of the Revised Code." Under R.C. 2901.21 (A), a person is not guilty of a criminal offense unless (1) the person's liability is based on either a voluntary act or an omission to perform an act or duty; and (2) the person has the requisite degree of culpability for each element as to which a culpable mental sta 2008Cole cites to State v. Sowry , 155 Ohio App.3d 742 , 2004-Ohio-399 , in support of his position. {¶ 7} R.C. 2921.36 (A)(2) states that no person shall "knowingly convey, or attempt to convey, onto the grounds of a detention facility * * * any drug of abuse, as defined in section 3719.011 of the Revised Code." Under R.C. 2901.21 (A), a person is not guilty of a criminal offense unless (1) the person's liability is based on either a voluntary act or an omission to perform an act or duty; and (2) the person has the requisite degree of culpability for each element as to which a culpable mental sta | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Harding, Unpublished Decision (2-3-2006)
green
1 sentence2007The term "under the influence" means that "the defendant consumed some [alcohol], * * * in *Page 6 such a quantity, whether small or great, that it adversely affected and appreciably impaired the defendant's actions, reactions, or mental processes under the circumstances then existing * * *." 4 Ohio Jury Instructions 6, Section 545.25; see, also, State v. Hardy (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 89 ; State v. Harding , Montgomery App. No. 20801, 2006-Ohio-481 . {¶ 13} It is generally accepted that virtually any lay witness, including a police officer, may testify as to whether an individual appears intoxic | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Astley
green
2 sentences2007R.C. 2907.02 (A)(1)(b), see State v. Sullivan (Oct. 7, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63818, citing State v. Astley (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 247 , 523 N.E.2d 322 . 2007R.C. 2907.02 (A)(1)(b), see State v. Sullivan (Oct. 7, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63818, citing State v. Astley (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 247 , 523 N.E.2d 322 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Beehive Ltd. Partnership
green
1 sentence2005Partnership (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 718 , 723 . {¶ 16} When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, "the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 67 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , quoting State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 17} In reviewing a claim challenging the manifest weight of the evidence, the question to be answered is whe | 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.