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.
12 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2024See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2 January Term, 2024 sample and conducted a gunshot-residue test. 2024See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2 January Term, 2024 sample and conducted a gunshot-residue test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anderson, 2008-P-0002 (12-5-2008)green1 sentence2013Portage No. 2008-P-0002, 2008-Ohio-6413, ¶ 60-61 (upholding conviction for Felonious Assault when the defendants and victims gave conflicting stories of the events surrounding the crimes). {¶38} Banks also argues that there was inconsistent evidence regarding the gunshot residue test because it does not show who actually fired the gunshots, residue was found on Banks’ clothing but not his hands, and Hall’s clothing was never tested. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2001See State v. Davis (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 326 , 341 (stating that the gunshot residue test, unlike the polygraph test, involves objective measurements). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kimmelman v. Morrison
green
2 sentences2024Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d at 389 , 721 N.E.2d 52 , quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). 2024Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d at 389 , 721 N.E.2d 52 , quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Madrigal
green
2 sentences2024Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d at 389 , 721 N.E.2d 52 , quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). 2024Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d at 389 , 721 N.E.2d 52 , quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Blair
green
1 sentence2024Id. {¶30} BCI performed a gunshot residue analysis on that black sweatshirt. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hale
neutral
1 sentence2019Cuyahoga No. 100447, 2014-Ohio-3322 . 3 There was no finding that the state intentionally or willfully withheld the gunshot residue test results. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Just
green
1 sentence2016Wayne No. 12CA0002, 2012-Ohio-4094, ¶ 42 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
2 sentences2014Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶8} In this case, the state contends that the disclosure of the gunshot residue test does not constitute a manifest injustice that necessitates the vacation of conviction and withdrawal of Hale’s guilty plea. 2014Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶8} In this case, the state contends that the disclosure of the gunshot residue test does not constitute a manifest injustice that necessitates the vacation of conviction and withdrawal of Hale’s guilty plea. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Dehass
green
2 sentences2012State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. 2012State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Thompkins
red
2 sentences2011Specifically, A.H.’s argument is threefold: first, the victim and eyewitness’s testimony is inconsistent as to whether A.H. had or shot a gun; second, the gunshot residue test performed on A.H. was negative; and third, A.H. was not acting with the same purpose as D.W. and was not complicit in the shooting. {¶ 13} The proper test for an appellate court reviewing a manifest weight of the evidence claim is as follows: {¶ 14} “The appellate court sits as the ‘thirteenth juror’ and, reviewing the entire record, weighs all the reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determi 2011Specifically, A.H.’s argument is threefold: first, the victim and eyewitness’s testimony is inconsistent as to whether A.H. had or shot a gun; second, the gunshot residue test performed on A.H. was negative; and third, A.H. was not acting with the same purpose as D.W. and was not complicit in the shooting. {¶ 13} The proper test for an appellate court reviewing a manifest weight of the evidence claim is as follows: {¶ 14} “The appellate court sits as the ‘thirteenth juror’ and, reviewing the entire record, weighs all the reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determi | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Vinson, 2006-L-238 (9-28-2007)
green
1 sentence2008No. 2006-L-238, 2007-Ohio-5199 , raising four assignments of error. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Jenks
red
1 sentence2001We are cognizant that "[c]ircumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value." State v. Treesh (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 460 , 485 , citing State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Treesh
green
1 sentence2001We are cognizant that "[c]ircumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value." State v. Treesh (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 460 , 485 , citing State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.