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.
13 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2025In State v. Taylor, 2012-Ohio-5421 (8th Dist.), this court explained that “chain of custody is part of the authentication and identification requirement in Evid.R. 901.” Id. at ¶ 36, citing State v. Brown, 107 Ohio App.3d 194, 200 (3d Dist. 1995). 2012State v. Brown, 107 Ohio App.3d 194, 200 , 668 N.E.2d 514 (3d Dist.1995). | 1 | 7 |
State v. Oharagreen1 sentence2026State v. Ohara, 2014-Ohio-5532, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). | 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. Glover
green
2 sentences2020Brown No. CA2015-01-003, 2015-Ohio-3707, ¶ 30 , citing State v. Rigdon, 12th Dist. 2016Brown No. CA2015-01-003, 2015-Ohio-3707, ¶ 30 , citing State v. Rigdon, 12th Dist. | 2 | 2016–2020 |
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2025In State v. Taylor, 2012-Ohio-5421 (8th Dist.), this court explained that “chain of custody is part of the authentication and identification requirement in Evid.R. 901.” Id. at ¶ 36, citing State v. Brown, 107 Ohio App.3d 194, 200 (3d Dist. 1995). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ohio v. Wilkins
green
2 sentences2018“A strict chain of custody is not always required in order for physical evidence to be admissible.” State v. Wilkins, 64 Ohio St.2d 382, 389 , 415 N.E.2d 303 (1980). 2018“A strict chain of custody is not always required in order for physical evidence to be admissible.” State v. Wilkins, 64 Ohio St.2d 382, 389 , 415 N.E.2d 303 (1980). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Guyton
green
1 sentence2018This is especially problematic when the two forensic scientists who performed the initial tests were either suspended and retrained or fired based on BCI’s investigation results. 10 Appellant’s brief at 18. {¶34} “The chain of custody of a piece of evidence is part of the authentication and identification requirement of Evid.R. 901.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Guyton, 2016-Ohio-8110 , 74 N.E.3d 939 , ¶ 31 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence2017Hamilton No. C-120327, 2013-Ohio-2720 , 2013 WL 3328829 , ¶ 16. {¶ 30} The chain of custody is part of the authentication and identification requirement in Evid.R. 901. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence2005Yeager, at ¶ 15, citing State v. Martin (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 122 , 129 . {¶ 8} Evid.R. 901(A) states that "[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Before evidence may be admitted at trial, the State must establish the chain of custody as part of the authentication and identification requirement of Evid.R. 901(A). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Barzacchini
green
1 sentence2001State v. Brown (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 194 , 200 ; State v. Barzacchini (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 440 , 458 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |