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.
21 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 2016–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Musacchio v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2026“That limited review does not intrude on the jury’s role to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237, 243 (2016). 2025“That limited review does not intrude on the jury’s role ‘to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’” Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237, 243 (2016), quoting Jackson at 319 . {¶13} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its wa | 9 | 12 |
State v. Jenksred2 sentences2023In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction, “[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 State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (19 2023In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction, “[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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (19 | 2 | 4 |
State v. Maxwellgreen2 sentences2018See ¶ 6-12. {¶94} "When a court reviews the record for sufficiency, '[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. Maxwell , 139 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2014-Ohio-1019 , 9 N.E.3d 930 , ¶ 146, quoting State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). {¶95} "A sufficiency assignment of error challenges th 2018See ¶ 6-12. {¶94} "When a court reviews the record for sufficiency, '[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. Maxwell , 139 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2014-Ohio-1019 , 9 N.E.3d 930 , ¶ 146, quoting State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). {¶95} "A sufficiency assignment of error challenges th | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bradshawgreen1 sentence2026We will not overturn a conviction based on insufficient evidence “‘unless reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion that the trier of fact did.’” State v. Cook, 2019-Ohio-4745, ¶ 15 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Bradshaw, 2018-Ohio-1105, ¶ 15 (4th Dist.). {¶36} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and cre | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen1 sentence2026We will not overturn a conviction based on insufficient evidence “‘unless reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion that the trier of fact did.’” State v. Cook, 2019-Ohio-4745, ¶ 15 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Bradshaw, 2018-Ohio-1105, ¶ 15 (4th Dist.). {¶36} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and cre | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2023In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction, “[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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (19 2023In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction, “[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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (19 | 5 | 2016–2023 |
State v. Koon
green
2 sentences2024No. 15CA17, 2016-Ohio-416, ¶ 17 . 2018Hocking No. 15CA17, 2016-Ohio-416 , 2016 WL 527289 , ¶ 17. | 3 | 2016–2024 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2023In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction, “[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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (19 2023In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction, “[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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (19 | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Adams, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2004)
green
1 sentence2018Medina No. 03CA0098-M, 2004-Ohio-3253 , 2004 WL 1397943 , ¶ 7 (applying same standard of review to review sufficiency of evidence claim in juvenile traffic offender case). {¶ 13} A sufficiency assignment of error challenges the legal adequacy of the state's prima facie case, not its rational persuasiveness. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.