21 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2021 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2019See, also, State v. Myers (Me.1975), 345 A.2d 500 ; State v. Artis (1981), 304 N.C. 378 , 283 S.E.2d 522 . {¶33} We have found that Brown did not clearly and unequivocally request an attorney. 2011See, also, State v. Myers (Me.1975), 345 A.2d 500 ; State v. Artis (1981), 304 N.C. 378 , 283 S.E.2d 522 . {¶45} “Applying these standards to the case sub judice, we note that Roberts was given warnings at the time of arrest (approximately two hours prior to talking to Fuqua), and that the record does not establish whether those warnings were given in the context of interrogation. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2018Exceptions to this general principle are weighed in Ohio by considering five factors: "(1) [T]he length of time between the giving of the first warnings and subsequent interrogation, * * * (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent interrogation were given in the same or different places, * * * (3) whether the warnings were given and the subsequent interrogation conducted by the same or different officers, * * * (4) the extent to which the subsequent statement differed from any previous statements; * * * [and] (5) the apparent intellectual and emotional state of the suspect." Powell at ¶ 119 2013He was not re-Mirandized prior to that interrogation. {¶35} Appellant was Mirandized during his time in custody but not immediately prior to the interrogation; the issue therefore is whether the warnings became “stale.” In State v. Roberts, 32 Ohio St.3d 225 , 513 N.E.2d 720 (1987), the Ohio Supreme Court applied a totality of the circumstances test and found that warnings given earlier had gone stale by the time the defendant made incriminating statements: The following criteria are set forth: “ * * * (1)[T]he length of time between the giving of the first warnings and subsequent interrogatio | 2 | 16 |
State v. McZorngreen2 sentences2019The following criteria are set forth: Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00107 14 “ * * * (1)[T]he length of time between the giving of the first warnings and subsequent interrogation, * * * (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent interrogation were given in the same or different places, * * * (3) whether the warnings were given and the subsequent interrogation conducted by the same or different officers, * * * (4) the extent to which the subsequent statement differed from any previous statements; * * * [and] (5) the apparent intellectual and emotional state of the suspect. * * *” (Citations omi 2019The following criteria are set forth: Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00107 14 “ * * * (1)[T]he length of time between the giving of the first warnings and subsequent interrogation, * * * (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent interrogation were given in the same or different places, * * * (3) whether the warnings were given and the subsequent interrogation conducted by the same or different officers, * * * (4) the extent to which the subsequent statement differed from any previous statements; * * * [and] (5) the apparent intellectual and emotional state of the suspect. * * *” (Citations omi | 1 | 9 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Artis
green
2 sentences2019See, also, State v. Myers (Me.1975), 345 A.2d 500 ; State v. Artis (1981), 304 N.C. 378 , 283 S.E.2d 522 . {¶33} We have found that Brown did not clearly and unequivocally request an attorney. 2019See, also, State v. Myers (Me.1975), 345 A.2d 500 ; State v. Artis (1981), 304 N.C. 378 , 283 S.E.2d 522 . {¶33} We have found that Brown did not clearly and unequivocally request an attorney. | 3 | 1987–2019 |
State v. Mack
green
2 sentences2016State v. Mack, 73 Ohio St.3d 502, 513-514 , 653 N.E.2d 329 (1995). {¶ 38} In order to determine if the warnings remain effective or have become stale, a totality of the circumstances test is employed involving the following factors criteria: 14. (1) the length of time between the giving of the first warnings and subsequent interrogation, * * * (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent interrogation were given in the same or different places, * * * (3) whether the warnings were given and the subsequent interrogation conducted by the same or different officers, * * * (4) the extent to which th 2016State v. Mack, 73 Ohio St.3d 502, 513-514 , 653 N.E.2d 329 (1995). {¶ 38} In order to determine if the warnings remain effective or have become stale, a totality of the circumstances test is employed involving the following factors criteria: 14. (1) the length of time between the giving of the first warnings and subsequent interrogation, * * * (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent interrogation were given in the same or different places, * * * (3) whether the warnings were given and the subsequent interrogation conducted by the same or different officers, * * * (4) the extent to which th | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence2003In determining whether the defendant remained aware of his rights, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including: {¶ 13} "(1) the length of time between the giving of the first warnings and subsequent interrogation, (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent interrogation were given in the same or different places, (3) whether the warnings were given and the subsequent interrogation conducted by the same or different officers, (4) the extent to which the subsequent statement differed from any previous statements, and (5) the apparent intellectual and emotional state of the suspect. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.