17 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2026 3 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. Beachgreen2 sentences2018Id., citing State v. Beach, 148 Ohio App.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2759 , 772 N.E.2d 677, ¶ 23 (1st Dist.). {¶56} A change in the name or identity of a crime charged occurs when the offense alleged in the indictment and the offense alleged in the amended indictment contain different elements that require independent proof. 2016To constitute reversible error, [the defendant] must show not only that the trial court abused its discretion, but that the amendment prejudiced his defense." State v. Beach, 148 Ohio App.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2759 , ¶ 23 (1st Dist.). | 2 | 3 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen2 sentences2007Id. {¶ 12} It is well settled that an amendment to an indictment which changes the name of the victim changes neither the substance nor the identity of the crime charged. 2007An arbitrary attitude, on the other hand, is an attitude that is `"without adequate determining principle; * * * not governed by any fixed rules or standard.'" Scandrick , at 359, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (5 Ed.); see, also, Congrove , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 17} Here, "[t]o demonstrate error, defendant must show not only that the trial court abused its discretion, but that the amendment prejudiced his defense." Smith , at ¶ 10 , citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 ; see, also, State v. Templeton , Richland App. No. 2006-CA-33, 2007-Ohio-1148 , at ¶ 66; State v. Brown , Delaware A | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2026State v. Wilson, 2019-Ohio-2754, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.). {¶83} In the case sub judice, appellant has not asserted that the amendment changed the name or identity of the crime charged. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Buchanangreen1 sentence2025State v. Buchanan, 2017-Ohio-1361, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas Koontz, Cross v. Richard Glossa and William J. Brown, Crossgreen1 sentence2019U.S. Constitution {¶ 31} “The law is well settled that the federal guarantee of a grand jury indictment has not been applied to the states.” Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d 365, 369 (6th Cir.1984), citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gibson, Ca2007-08-187 (11-17-2008)green1 sentence2019Butler No. CA2007-08-187, 2008-Ohio-5932, ¶ 16 (“appellant must show * * * the amendment prejudiced her defense.”); State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2006-Ohio-18 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , ¶ 182. {¶ 30} Accordingly, we find appellant’s assigned error not well-taken as it relates to an alleged violation of the Ohio Constitution. 2. | 1 | 1 |
City of Dayton, ex rel. Scandrick v. City of Dayton Mayor McGeegreen1 sentence2007An arbitrary attitude, on the other hand, is an attitude that is `"without adequate determining principle; * * * not governed by any fixed rules or standard.'" Scandrick , at 359, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (5 Ed.); see, also, Congrove , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 17} Here, "[t]o demonstrate error, defendant must show not only that the trial court abused its discretion, but that the amendment prejudiced his defense." Smith , at ¶ 10 , citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 ; see, also, State v. Templeton , Richland App. No. 2006-CA-33, 2007-Ohio-1148 , at ¶ 66; State v. Brown , Delaware A | 1 | 1 |
State v. Templeton, Unpublished Decision (3-14-2007)green1 sentence2007An arbitrary attitude, on the other hand, is an attitude that is `"without adequate determining principle; * * * not governed by any fixed rules or standard.'" Scandrick , at 359, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (5 Ed.); see, also, Congrove , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 17} Here, "[t]o demonstrate error, defendant must show not only that the trial court abused its discretion, but that the amendment prejudiced his defense." Smith , at ¶ 10 , citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 ; see, also, State v. Templeton , Richland App. No. 2006-CA-33, 2007-Ohio-1148 , at ¶ 66; State v. Brown , Delaware 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. Adams
green
2 sentences2013Id. {¶11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the exact time and date of the alleged offense need not be specified in the indictment unless the time and date are essential elements of the offense. 2011Id. {¶10} Crim R. 7(D) provides: {¶11} “The court may at any time before, during, or after a trial amend the indictment, information, complaint, or bill of particulars, in respect to any defect, imperfection, or omission in form or substance, or of any variance with the evidence, provided no change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged. | 6 | 2004–2013 |
State v. Hand
green
2 sentences2019Butler No. CA2007-08-187, 2008-Ohio-5932, ¶ 16 (“appellant must show * * * the amendment prejudiced her defense.”); State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2006-Ohio-18 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , ¶ 182. {¶ 30} Accordingly, we find appellant’s assigned error not well-taken as it relates to an alleged violation of the Ohio Constitution. 2. 2008State v. Hand , 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2006-Ohio-18 , ¶ 182 . *Page 6 {¶ 17} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the state to file an amended bill of particulars, as the name and identity of the crimes alleged did not change. | 2 | 2008–2019 |
State v. Dudukovich, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2006)
green
1 sentence2021Lorain No. 05CA008729, 2006-Ohio-1309, ¶ 16 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Branzburg v. Hayes
green
2 sentences2019U.S. Constitution {¶ 31} “The law is well settled that the federal guarantee of a grand jury indictment has not been applied to the states.” Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d 365, 369 (6th Cir.1984), citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 (1972). 2019U.S. Constitution {¶ 31} “The law is well settled that the federal guarantee of a grand jury indictment has not been applied to the states.” Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d 365, 369 (6th Cir.1984), citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 (1972). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (9-9-2004)
green
1 sentence2008Smith , supra, at ¶ 10 . {¶ 17} In this case, no change was made in the name or identity of the crime charged. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (10-20-2005)
green
1 sentence2007An arbitrary attitude, on the other hand, is an attitude that is `"without adequate determining principle; * * * not governed by any fixed rules or standard.'" Scandrick , at 359, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (5 Ed.); see, also, Congrove , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 17} Here, "[t]o demonstrate error, defendant must show not only that the trial court abused its discretion, but that the amendment prejudiced his defense." Smith , at ¶ 10 , citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 ; see, also, State v. Templeton , Richland App. No. 2006-CA-33, 2007-Ohio-1148 , at ¶ 66; State v. Brown , Delaware A | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Snowden
green
1 sentence2007An arbitrary attitude, on the other hand, is an attitude that is `"without adequate determining principle; * * * not governed by any fixed rules or standard.'" Scandrick , at 359, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (5 Ed.); see, also, Congrove , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 17} Here, "[t]o demonstrate error, defendant must show not only that the trial court abused its discretion, but that the amendment prejudiced his defense." Smith , at ¶ 10 , citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 ; see, also, State v. Templeton , Richland App. No. 2006-CA-33, 2007-Ohio-1148 , at ¶ 66; State v. Brown , Delaware A | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.