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 2 courts 1983–2014 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2014See Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, at ¶ 15 ; State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 . 2014See Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, at ¶ 15 ; State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Ahmed, 2007-Ca-00049 (2-4-2008)green2 sentences2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a 2008Thus, a so-called "[t]rial error" is "error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Fulminante , 499 U.S. at 307 -308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed , Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 at ¶ 23-24. {¶ 35} "When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the average *Page | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Young
green
2 sentences2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a 2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a | 10 | 1999–2012 |
Harrington v. California
green
2 sentences2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a 2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a | 7 | 1983–2009 |
State v. Auld, 2006-Cac-120091 (7-9-2007)
green
2 sentences2008Instead, the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that [exclusion of] the evidence * * * might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , at ¶ 78. “ ‘When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the average juror.’ ” State v. Auld, Delaware App. No. 2006-CAC-120091, 2007-Ohio-3508 , 2007 WL 1977748 , at ¶ 28, quoting State v. Young (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 221, 226 , 5 OBR 484, 450 N.E.2d 1143 . 2008Instead, the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Conway , 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006-Ohio-791 , at ¶ 78 . "`When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the average juror.'" State v. Auld , Delaware App. No. 2006-CAC-120091, 2007-Ohio-3508 , at ¶ 28 , quoting State v. Young (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 221 , 226 (further citations omitted). | 3 | 2008–2012 |
State v. Conway
green
2 sentences2012State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214, 228 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , citing Chapman at 24 . {¶ 29} “‘“When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the average juror.”’” Obasohan at 397 , quoting State v. Auld, 4th Dist. 2012State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214, 228 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , citing Chapman at 24 . {¶ 29} “‘“When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the average juror.”’” Obasohan at 397 , quoting State v. Auld, 4th Dist. | 3 | 2008–2012 |
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2014See Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, at ¶ 15 ; State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 . 2014See Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, at ¶ 15 ; State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Arizona v. Fulminante
green
2 sentences2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a 2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a | 2 | 2008–2009 |
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.