12 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2025 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. Lottgreen2 sentences2018State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163 , 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990). {¶ 33} Under the other acts test, the state must show that evidence of the other charged offenses would be admissible as “other acts” under Evid.R. 404(B) even if the counts are severed for trial. 2018State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163 , 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990). {¶ 33} Under the other acts test, the state must show that evidence of the other charged offenses would be admissible as “other acts” under Evid.R. 404(B) even if the counts are severed for trial. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2025Further, “an accused is not prejudiced by joinder when simple and direct evidence exists, regardless of the admissibility of evidence of other crimes under Evid.R. 404(B).” Id. -10- Case No. 3-24-03 {¶25} Under the other acts test, a “claim of prejudice is negated when . . . evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible as ‘other acts’ evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) . . . .” State v. Gideon, 2021-Ohio-1863, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Ahmed, 2005-Ohio-2999, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.). 2024See State v. Johnson, 88 Ohio St.3d 95, 109 , 723 N.E.2d 1054 (2000) (if the state can meet the simple and direct test, it need not meet the stricter other acts test). {¶ 41} Turner’s first assignment of error is overruled. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Brucegreen1 sentence2025Under Evid.R. 404(B), other acts “evidence may be used to establish ‘motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.’” State v. Bruce, 2023-Ohio-3298, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.), quoting Evid.R. 404(B)(2). {¶26} In determining whether other-acts evidence is admissible, courts must consider (1) whether the other acts evidence is “relevant to making any fact that is of consequence . . . more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”; (2) whether the other acts evidence is presented for a “legitimate purpose”; (3) and whether the pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2025Under Evid.R. 404(B), other acts “evidence may be used to establish ‘motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.’” State v. Bruce, 2023-Ohio-3298, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.), quoting Evid.R. 404(B)(2). {¶26} In determining whether other-acts evidence is admissible, courts must consider (1) whether the other acts evidence is “relevant to making any fact that is of consequence . . . more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”; (2) whether the other acts evidence is presented for a “legitimate purpose”; (3) and whether the pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gideongreen1 sentence2025Further, “an accused is not prejudiced by joinder when simple and direct evidence exists, regardless of the admissibility of evidence of other crimes under Evid.R. 404(B).” Id. -10- Case No. 3-24-03 {¶25} Under the other acts test, a “claim of prejudice is negated when . . . evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible as ‘other acts’ evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) . . . .” State v. Gideon, 2021-Ohio-1863, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Ahmed, 2005-Ohio-2999, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ahmed, Unpublished Decision (6-16-2005)green1 sentence2025Further, “an accused is not prejudiced by joinder when simple and direct evidence exists, regardless of the admissibility of evidence of other crimes under Evid.R. 404(B).” Id. -10- Case No. 3-24-03 {¶25} Under the other acts test, a “claim of prejudice is negated when . . . evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible as ‘other acts’ evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) . . . .” State v. Gideon, 2021-Ohio-1863, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Ahmed, 2005-Ohio-2999, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lowegreen1 sentence2005See, also, State v. Lowe (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 527 , 530 . {¶ 11} In the present case, the trial court held a prior acts hearing on October 4, 2004, in which three witnesses testified as to their knowledge of Defendant's prior acts of violence against women. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mowerygreen2 sentences1995See State v. Mowery (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 192 , 1 OBR 219, 438 N.E.2d 897 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Howard (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 910, 916 , 577 N.E.2d 749, 753-754 . 1995See State v. Mowery (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 192 , 1 OBR 219, 438 N.E.2d 897 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Howard (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 910, 916 , 577 N.E.2d 749, 753-754 . | 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. Franklin
green
2 sentences1998Id. 1997State v. Franklin (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 118 , 122 ; State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 163 . 4 The other acts test permits the state to negate a defendant's claim that he was prejudiced by the joinder of multiple offenses for trial by demonstrating that it could have introduced evidence of one offense in the trial of the other offense under the other acts portion of Evid.R. 404(B), even if the offenses had been severed for trial. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2025Under Evid.R. 404(B), other acts “evidence may be used to establish ‘motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.’” State v. Bruce, 2023-Ohio-3298, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.), quoting Evid.R. 404(B)(2). {¶26} In determining whether other-acts evidence is admissible, courts must consider (1) whether the other acts evidence is “relevant to making any fact that is of consequence . . . more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”; (2) whether the other acts evidence is presented for a “legitimate purpose”; (3) and whether the pr | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Sanders
green
1 sentence2017Ohio St.3d 150, 151, 761 N.E.2d 18 (2002). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Gary Lee Wipf
green
1 sentence2015R.] 404(B), and that the State has satisfied the other acts test.” Id. {¶ 15} Once it was decided that the cell-phone images would be admissible in the trial on the Indictment A charges, Jackson pled no contest to nineteen of the counts charged in Indictment C. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Treesh
green
1 sentence2005State v. Treesh (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 460,488 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Chase v. Oregon
green
2 sentences2002Id. 2002Id. {¶ 57} We find that the joinder test is met in the instant case. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Van Sickle
green
1 sentence1997Schaim at 59 ; State v. Van Sickle (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 301 , 305 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Howard
neutral
2 sentences1995See State v. Mowery (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 192 , 1 OBR 219, 438 N.E.2d 897 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Howard (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 910, 916 , 577 N.E.2d 749, 753-754 . 1995See State v. Mowery (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 192 , 1 OBR 219, 438 N.E.2d 897 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Howard (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 910, 916 , 577 N.E.2d 749, 753-754 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In Re Removal of Member of Council Joseph Coppola
green
1 sentence1970In the case of In re Coppola (1951), 155 Ohio St. 329 , the syllabus reads as follows: “Under Sections 3808 and 4670, General Code, a member of the council of a municipal corporation who has been interested, directly or indirectly, in the profits of a contract, job, work or service undertaken or prosecuted by the corporation, contrary to law, is subject to being charged in a complaint authorized by Section 4670, whether the acts in violation of such section were performed by the member of council during his present term of office or a previous one.” At first sight this would appear to modify t | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.