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.
16 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alford v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003Only where the prosecution inquires into new areas during redirect examination must the trial court allow defense the opportunity to recross-examine." (Citations omitted.) State v. Faulkner (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 42 , 46 , 381 N.E.2d 934 , citing Alford v. United States (1931), 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 . {¶ 14} After reviewing the record, we conclude that the state did not inquire into a new area in its redirect examination of Officer Lewis. 2003Only where the prosecution inquires into new areas during redirect examination must the trial court allow defense the opportunity to recross-examine." (Citations omitted.) State v. Faulkner (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 42 , 46 , 381 N.E.2d 934 , citing Alford v. United States (1931), 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 . {¶ 14} After reviewing the record, we conclude that the state did not inquire into a new area in its redirect examination of Officer Lewis. | 4 | 7 |
State v. Faulknergreen2 sentences2020Vol. II at 434-35.) {¶ 33} In State v. Faulkner, 56 Ohio St.2d 42, 46 (1978), the Supreme Court stated "[a]lthough a defendant must have the opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses against him as a matter of right, * * * the opportunity to recross-examine a witness is within the discretion of the trial court. * * * Only where the prosecution inquires into new areas during redirect examination must the trial court allow defense the opportunity to recross-examine." An alleged violation of confrontation rights is subject to harmless-error analysis. 2018"Only where the prosecution inquires into new areas during redirect examination must the trial court allow defense the opportunity to recross-examine." Faulkner at 46, 381 N.E.2d 934 . {¶ 18} Here, Ms. Delaney's own trial counsel was the first attorney to raise the issue of DNA evidence with the detective. | 2 | 7 |
City of Columbus v. Woodrickgreen2 sentences2007The case cited by Appellant, *Page 8 Columbus v. Woodrick (1976), 48 Ohio App.2d 274 , 277-278 , 357 N.E.2d 58 , held: "The failure of a court to allow defense counsel in a criminal trial to present a closing argument is reversible error, in the absence of a plain showing that there was an intentional waiver of the right." Id. at syllabus. 2007The case cited by Appellant, *Page 8 Columbus v. Woodrick (1976), 48 Ohio App.2d 274 , 277-278 , 357 N.E.2d 58 , held: "The failure of a court to allow defense counsel in a criminal trial to present a closing argument is reversible error, in the absence of a plain showing that there was an intentional waiver of the right." Id. at syllabus. | 1 | 3 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen1 sentence2020State v. Smith, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1165, 2007-Ohio-6772, ¶ 23 , citing State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2002-Ohio-7044, ¶ 31 , citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 682 (1986). {¶ 34} In this case, appellant fails to argue any other instances of an attempt to conduct recross-examination. | 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. Smith, 06ap-1165 (12-18-2007)
green
1 sentence2020State v. Smith, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1165, 2007-Ohio-6772, ¶ 23 , citing State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2002-Ohio-7044, ¶ 31 , citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 682 (1986). {¶ 34} In this case, appellant fails to argue any other instances of an attempt to conduct recross-examination. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences2020State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352, 359-360 , 738 N.E.2d 1208 (2000). 2020State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352, 359-360 , 738 N.E.2d 1208 (2000). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Noling
green
2 sentences2020State v. Smith, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1165, 2007-Ohio-6772, ¶ 23 , citing State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2002-Ohio-7044, ¶ 31 , citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 682 (1986). {¶ 34} In this case, appellant fails to argue any other instances of an attempt to conduct recross-examination. 2020State v. Smith, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1165, 2007-Ohio-6772, ¶ 23 , citing State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2002-Ohio-7044, ¶ 31 , citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 682 (1986). {¶ 34} In this case, appellant fails to argue any other instances of an attempt to conduct recross-examination. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Herrera v. Collins
green
1 sentence1999In Herrera v. Collins (1993), 506 U.S. 390 , the United States Supreme Court held that a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation which occurred in the underlying state criminal proceeding. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Plunkett-Webster Lumber Co. v. Buchanan
green
1 sentence1956This conclusion is in entire accord with the opinion written by Judge Doyle in In re Estate of Buchanan, supra, and in which the writer of this opinion concurred. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.