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.
17 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2026 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. Maupingreen2 sentences2016Summit No. 23507, 2007-Ohio-2345, ¶ 12 (“Furthermore, an experienced police officer can identify marijuana, and an officer’s testimony is sufficient to support a finding that a substance is marijuana without a laboratory test.”), citing State v. Maupin, 42 Ohio St.2d 473, 478-479 (1975) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support identification of substance as marijuana because there was no chemical or scientific 9 analysis offered into evidence); In re Bennett, 134 Ohio App.3d 699, 701 (12th Dist.1999) (“We reject the trial court’s ruling that [the witn 2006That evidence is insufficient to prove that appellant sold, obtained, possessed, or used crack cocaine. {¶ 18} In State v. Maupin (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 473 , 71 O.O.2d 485 , 330 N.E.2d 708 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held that narcotics officers may be qualified to identify marijuana without a laboratory test. | 1 | 6 |
Hawkins v. Marion Correctional Institutegreen2 sentences2020Id. {¶93} Chain of custody is a part of the authentication and identification mandate set forth in Evid.R. 901 and the state has the burden of establishing the chain of custody of a specific piece of evidence. 2020Inst., 62 Ohio App.3d 863, 871 (3d Dist.1990); see State v. Thompson, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
Ohio v. Hymoregreen1 sentence2025Catlin’s Third Assignment of Error The trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence in violation of the Ohio Rules of Evidence. {¶76} In his third assignment of error, Catlin argues that the trial court erred by improperly admitting hearsay evidence in violation of the Rules of Evidence. {¶77} “Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s hearsay rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 97 , citing State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122, 128 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Xiegreen2 sentences2021He assigns the following as error: {¶3} “The trial court abused its discretion by overruling defendant-appellant’s Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea when said motion was filed before sentencing.” {¶4} In support of his assignment of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred because: (1) he entered his plea despite his belief that he was innocent of the charges; (2) he entered his plea despite his belief that his prior attorney would conduct a laboratory test of the alleged controlled substance that was found on his person; (3) he was unduly pressured by counsel to enter the 2021Id. at 526 . | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Fairfield County, Case No. 18-CA-35 6 146 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2016-Ohio-451 , 58 N.E.2d 114, ¶26 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Bennettgreen1 sentence2016Summit No. 23507, 2007-Ohio-2345, ¶ 12 (“Furthermore, an experienced police officer can identify marijuana, and an officer’s testimony is sufficient to support a finding that a substance is marijuana without a laboratory test.”), citing State v. Maupin, 42 Ohio St.2d 473, 478-479 (1975) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support identification of substance as marijuana because there was no chemical or scientific 9 analysis offered into evidence); In re Bennett, 134 Ohio App.3d 699, 701 (12th Dist.1999) (“We reject the trial court’s ruling that [the witn | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mathis, 23507 (5-16-2007)green1 sentence2016Summit No. 23507, 2007-Ohio-2345, ¶ 12 (“Furthermore, an experienced police officer can identify marijuana, and an officer’s testimony is sufficient to support a finding that a substance is marijuana without a laboratory test.”), citing State v. Maupin, 42 Ohio St.2d 473, 478-479 (1975) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support identification of substance as marijuana because there was no chemical or scientific 9 analysis offered into evidence); In re Bennett, 134 Ohio App.3d 699, 701 (12th Dist.1999) (“We reject the trial court’s ruling that [the witn | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clark, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2004)green1 sentence2004Nos. 2001-P-0031, 2001-P-0033 2001-P-0034, 2001-P-0057, and 2001-P-0058, 2004-Ohio-334, at ¶ 73 (finding that although the State "may have had a good idea that the substance was cocaine prior to the analysis date, they did not know for sure until the substance was analyzed" thus there was no violation of the defendant's right to a speedy trial); State v. Wangul, 8th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gilliamgreen1 sentence2000See id. at 385 , citing State v. Gilliam (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 17 , 19-20 . 1 Defendant has conceded that the laboratory analysis could be properly admitted as a business record pursuant to Evid.R. 803(6). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Madrigalgreen1 sentence2000See id. at 385 , citing State v. Gilliam (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 17 , 19-20 . 1 Defendant has conceded that the laboratory analysis could be properly admitted as a business record pursuant to Evid.R. 803(6). | 1 | 1 |
California v. Trombettagreen2 sentences1991In State v. Purdon (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 217 , 24 OBR 395, 494 N.E.2d 1154 , the court declined the Supreme Court’s suggestion to act as a court and held that it was up to the legislature to regulate scientific evidence: “ * * * As pointed out by the court in Trombetta [ 467 U.S. at 491-492, fn.12 , 104 S.Ct. at 2535-2536, fn.12 , 81 L.Ed.2d] at 423-424, fn. 12, the legislature, if it so desired, could have adopted ‘ * * * more rigorous safeguards governing the admissibility of scientific evidence than those imposed by the Federal Constitution.’ The legislature has not seen fit to impose such 1991In State v. Purdon (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 217 , 24 OBR 395, 494 N.E.2d 1154 , the court declined the Supreme Court’s suggestion to act as a court and held that it was up to the legislature to regulate scientific evidence: “ * * * As pointed out by the court in Trombetta [ 467 U.S. at 491-492, fn.12 , 104 S.Ct. at 2535-2536, fn.12 , 81 L.Ed.2d] at 423-424, fn. 12, the legislature, if it so desired, could have adopted ‘ * * * more rigorous safeguards governing the admissibility of scientific evidence than those imposed by the Federal Constitution.’ The legislature has not seen fit to impose such | 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. Heinish
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2025Catlin’s Third Assignment of Error The trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence in violation of the Ohio Rules of Evidence. {¶76} In his third assignment of error, Catlin argues that the trial court erred by improperly admitting hearsay evidence in violation of the Rules of Evidence. {¶77} “Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s hearsay rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 97 , citing State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122, 128 (1967). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Baker (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2019Fairfield County, Case No. 18-CA-35 6 146 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2016-Ohio-451 , 58 N.E.2d 114, ¶26 (emphasis added). 2019Fairfield County, Case No. 18-CA-35 6 146 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2016-Ohio-451 , 58 N.E.2d 114, ¶26 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2019It states, “While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” {¶17} In State v. Baker, the Ohio Supreme Court held, Our decisions in Plummer [ 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E. 2d 902 (1986] and Mayl [ 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 ] are instructive on the question of substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701–53–05(F) and establish that the state’s error in failing to refrigerate a specimen for four to five hours before placement of the specimen in transit to a laboratory for analysis is a de minimis error and does not rend 2019It states, “While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” {¶17} In State v. Baker, the Ohio Supreme Court held, Our decisions in Plummer [ 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E. 2d 902 (1986] and Mayl [ 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 ] are instructive on the question of substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701–53–05(F) and establish that the state’s error in failing to refrigerate a specimen for four to five hours before placement of the specimen in transit to a laboratory for analysis is a de minimis error and does not rend | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Mayl
green
2 sentences2019It states, “While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” {¶17} In State v. Baker, the Ohio Supreme Court held, Our decisions in Plummer [ 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E. 2d 902 (1986] and Mayl [ 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 ] are instructive on the question of substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701–53–05(F) and establish that the state’s error in failing to refrigerate a specimen for four to five hours before placement of the specimen in transit to a laboratory for analysis is a de minimis error and does not rend 2019It states, “While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” {¶17} In State v. Baker, the Ohio Supreme Court held, Our decisions in Plummer [ 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E. 2d 902 (1986] and Mayl [ 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 ] are instructive on the question of substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701–53–05(F) and establish that the state’s error in failing to refrigerate a specimen for four to five hours before placement of the specimen in transit to a laboratory for analysis is a de minimis error and does not rend | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Mingua
green
2 sentences2015No. 58423, 1991 WL 76031 , citing State v. Mingua (1974), 42 Ohio App.2d 35 , 39–40, 71 O.O.2d 234 , 327 N.E.2d 791 . {¶26} Here, the laboratory test results were not the only evidence presented at trial. 2015No. 58423, 1991 WL 76031 , citing State v. Mingua (1974), 42 Ohio App.2d 35 , 39–40, 71 O.O.2d 234 , 327 N.E.2d 791 . {¶26} Here, the laboratory test results were not the only evidence presented at trial. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Tollett v. Henderson
green
1 sentence2006We do not reach the merits of this argument because Padgett's no contest plea waived the right to raise it on appeal. {¶ 2} In Tollett v. Henderson (1973), 411 U.S. 258 , 267 , the United States Supreme Court stated: {¶ 3} "[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Titsworth, Unpublished Decision (4-28-2005)
neutral
1 sentence2006Specifically, the court stated: {¶ 19} “ ‘Marijuana, not being an extract or preparation difficult or impossible to characterize without chemical analysis, but consisting of the dried leaves, stems, and seeds of a plant which anyone reasonably familiar therewith should be able to identify by appearance, it is not error to permit officers who have had experience in searching for and obtaining marijuana to testify that a certain substance is marijuana; and other police officers have also been held qualified so to testify.’ ” Id. at 480 , 71 O.O.2d 485 , 330 N.E.2d 708 , quoting 23 Corpus Juris S | 1 | 2006–2006 |
James Banks and Harold E. Faulkner v. Federal Aviation Administration and United States of America
green
2 sentences1991A laboratory challenge of that test was its only effective counter.” Banks, 687 F.2d at 94-95 . 1991A laboratory challenge of that test was its only effective counter.” Banks, 687 F.2d at 94-95 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Purdon
green
2 sentences1991In State v. Purdon (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 217 , 24 OBR 395, 494 N.E.2d 1154 , the court declined the Supreme Court’s suggestion to act as a court and held that it was up to the legislature to regulate scientific evidence: “ * * * As pointed out by the court in Trombetta [ 467 U.S. at 491-492, fn.12 , 104 S.Ct. at 2535-2536, fn.12 , 81 L.Ed.2d] at 423-424, fn. 12, the legislature, if it so desired, could have adopted ‘ * * * more rigorous safeguards governing the admissibility of scientific evidence than those imposed by the Federal Constitution.’ The legislature has not seen fit to impose such 1991In State v. Purdon (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 217 , 24 OBR 395, 494 N.E.2d 1154 , the court declined the Supreme Court’s suggestion to act as a court and held that it was up to the legislature to regulate scientific evidence: “ * * * As pointed out by the court in Trombetta [ 467 U.S. at 491-492, fn.12 , 104 S.Ct. at 2535-2536, fn.12 , 81 L.Ed.2d] at 423-424, fn. 12, the legislature, if it so desired, could have adopted ‘ * * * more rigorous safeguards governing the admissibility of scientific evidence than those imposed by the Federal Constitution.’ The legislature has not seen fit to impose such | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.