criminal conduct violation in Ohio

17 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2011 0 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 (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Mooregreen ohioctapp · 1996 · cited in 15 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1999–2011 2 sentences 2011No. 23438, 2010-Ohio-5157 . {¶ 50} “The double jeopardy clauses of both the United States and Ohio Constitutions protect ‘an individual against successive punishments as well as successive prosecutions for the same offense.’ State v. Moore (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 649, 652 , 675 N.E.2d 13 (citations omitted). ‘Ohio’s allied offenses statute, R.C. 2941.25, protects against multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.’ Id. at 653 , 675 N.E.2d 13 .” State v. Lowery, 11th Dist. 2011No. 23438, 2010-Ohio-5157 . {¶ 50} “The double jeopardy clauses of both the United States and Ohio Constitutions protect ‘an individual against successive punishments as well as successive prosecutions for the same offense.’ State v. Moore (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 649, 652 , 675 N.E.2d 13 (citations omitted). ‘Ohio’s allied offenses statute, R.C. 2941.25, protects against multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.’ Id. at 653 , 675 N.E.2d 13 .” State v. Lowery, 11th Dist.	1	15
State v. Lewisred ohio · 1999 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2003–2008 2 sentences 2008"Ohio's allied offenses statute, R.C. 2941.25 , protects against multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions." Id. at 653 (citations omitted). {¶ 12} "With its multiple-count statute, Ohio intends to permit a defendant to be punished for multiple offenses of dissimilar import. * * * If, however, a defendant's actions `can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import ,' the defendant may be convicted ( i.e. , found guilty and punished) of only one. * * * But if a defendant 2003However, in State v. Rance (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 632 , paragraph one of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court explicitly overruled its earlier decision in Vazirani. {¶ 43} R.C. 2941.25 , Ohio's allied offenses statute, protects against multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.	1	2

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 (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Lowery, 2007-T-0085 (4-18-2008) neutral ohioctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2011No. 2007-T-0085, 2008-Ohio-1896, ¶11 . 2011No. 2007-T-0085, 2008-Ohio-1896, ¶11 .	3	2011–2011
State v. Thomas red ohio · 1980 2 sentences 2000Thomas, 61 Ohio St.2d at 260 . 1999Thomas , 61 Ohio St.2d at 260 ; State v. Moore (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 649 , 653 .	2	1999–2000
State v. Underwood green ohio · 2010 2 sentences 2011But our review is essentially the same because “imposition of multiple sentences for allied offenses of similar import is plain error.” State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 , ¶31. {¶ 11} “The double jeopardy clauses of both the United States and Ohio Constitutions protect ‘an individual against successive punishments as well as successive prosecutions for the same offense.’ State v. Moore (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 649, 652 , 675 N.E.2d 13 (citations omitted). ‘Ohio’s allied offenses statute, R.C. 2941.25, protects against multiple punishments for the same crimina 2011But our review is essentially the same because “imposition of multiple sentences for allied offenses of similar import is plain error.” State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 , ¶31. {¶ 11} “The double jeopardy clauses of both the United States and Ohio Constitutions protect ‘an individual against successive punishments as well as successive prosecutions for the same offense.’ State v. Moore (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 649, 652 , 675 N.E.2d 13 (citations omitted). ‘Ohio’s allied offenses statute, R.C. 2941.25, protects against multiple punishments for the same crimina	1	2011–2011
United States v. Douglas Lee Dunford, Sr. green ca4 · 1998 1 sentence 2008"Ohio's allied offenses statute, R.C. 2941.25 , protects against multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions." Id. at 653 (citations omitted). {¶ 12} "With its multiple-count statute, Ohio intends to permit a defendant to be punished for multiple offenses of dissimilar import. * * * If, however, a defendant's actions `can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import ,' the defendant may be convicted ( i.e. , found guilty and punished) of only one. * * * But if a defendant	1	2008–2008
State v. Thompson green ohioctapp · 1988 1 sentence 2008"Ohio's allied offenses statute, R.C. 2941.25 , protects against multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions." Id. at 653 (citations omitted). {¶ 12} "With its multiple-count statute, Ohio intends to permit a defendant to be punished for multiple offenses of dissimilar import. * * * If, however, a defendant's actions `can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import ,' the defendant may be convicted ( i.e. , found guilty and punished) of only one. * * * But if a defendant	1	2008–2008
North Carolina v. Pearce red scotus · 1969 2 sentences 1996State v. Fields (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 337, 347 , 646 N.E.2d 866, 873 , citing North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 . 1996State v. Fields (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 337, 347 , 646 N.E.2d 866, 873 , citing North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 .	1	1996–1996
State v. Fields green ohioctapp · 1994 2 sentences 1996State v. Fields (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 337, 347 , 646 N.E.2d 866, 873 , citing North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 . 1996State v. Fields (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 337, 347 , 646 N.E.2d 866, 873 , citing North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 .	1	1996–1996

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2905.01 (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

WA 88 (1990–2026) OH 17 (1996–2011) PA 7 (1996–2026) MO 3 (2002–2018)

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