essential features defense in Ohio

2024“One of the essential features of the defense of duress is a sense of immediate, imminent death, or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed.” State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180, 199 , 702 N.E.2d 866 (1998), citing Cross at 487 .

2024“One of the essential features of the defense of duress is a sense of immediate, imminent death, or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed.” State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180, 199 , 702 N.E.2d 866 (1998), citing Cross at 487 .

2024State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St. 3d 180, 199 , 1998-Ohio-533 .

2014If the evidence generates only a mere speculation or possible doubt, such evidence is insufficient to raise the affirmative defense, and submission of the issue to the jury will be unwarranted.” Getsy at 198-199 , quoting State v. Robinson, 47 Ohio St.2d 103, 111-112 , 351 N.E.2d 88 (1976). {¶55} “One of the essential features of the defense of duress is a sense of immediate, imminent death, or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed. * * * The force used to compel the actor’s conduct must remain constant, controlling the will of the unwilling actor during the

2014If the evidence generates only a mere speculation or possible doubt, such evidence is insufficient to raise the affirmative defense, and submission of the issue to the jury will be unwarranted.” Getsy at 198-199 , quoting State v. Robinson, 47 Ohio St.2d 103, 111-112 , 351 N.E.2d 88 (1976). {¶55} “One of the essential features of the defense of duress is a sense of immediate, imminent death, or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed. * * * The force used to compel the actor’s conduct must remain constant, controlling the will of the unwilling actor during the

2013The force used to compel the actor’s conduct must remain constant, controlling the will of the unwilling actor during the entire time he commits the act, and must be of such a nature that the actor cannot safely withdraw. {¶92} Appellant took issue with this paragraph and sought to substitute it with her proposed instruction, taken from an Ohio Supreme Court case, State v. Woods, 48 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976).

2007The Ohio Supreme Court "acknowledged the discretionary aspect of Crim.R. 52(B) by admonishing courts to notice plain error `with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" Id., quoting State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , quoting State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 20} One of the essential features of the defense of duress is the sense of immediate, imminent death or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed.

2007The Ohio Supreme Court "acknowledged the discretionary aspect of Crim.R. 52(B) by admonishing courts to notice plain error `with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" Id., quoting State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , quoting State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 20} One of the essential features of the defense of duress is the sense of immediate, imminent death or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed.

2007The Ohio Supreme Court "acknowledged the discretionary aspect of Crim.R. 52(B) by admonishing courts to notice plain error `with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" Id., quoting State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , quoting State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 20} One of the essential features of the defense of duress is the sense of immediate, imminent death or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed.

2003"One of the essential features of the defense of duress is the sense of immediate, imminent death or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed." Id. at 145 , citing State v. Cross (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 482 . {¶ 296} Trial counsel did not act ineffectively in failing to offer a defense of duress because the facts presented at trial, including Skatzes' own testimony, did not support such a defense.

1998Melchior at 20, 10 O.O.3d at 11-12, 381 N.E.2d at 199 . {¶ 113} One of the essential features of the defense of duress is a sense of immediate, imminent death, or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed.