12 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 4 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. McKinneygreen2 sentences2026See In re C.N., 2015-Ohio-2546, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.) (“though sufficiency and manifest weight are different legal concepts, a finding that a judgment is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a finding that sufficient evidence supports the judgment”); see also State v. McKinney, 2024-Ohio-4642, ¶ 63 (4th Dist.) (“a determination that the weight of the evidence supports a conviction also is dispositive of an insufficient-evidence claim”). 2026See In re C.N., 2015-Ohio-2546 , ¶ 9 (10th Dist.) (“though sufficiency and manifest weight are different legal concepts, a finding that a judgment is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a finding that sufficient HIGHLAND, 25CA12 22 evidence supports the judgment”); see also State v. McKinney, 2024-Ohio-4642, ¶ 63 (4th Dist.) (“a determination that the weight of the evidence supports a conviction also is dispositive of an insufficient-evidence claim”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bengegreen2 sentences2015State v. Benge, 75 Ohio St.3d 136, 143 , 1996-Ohio-227 . {¶ 7} Eldridge was convicted of OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), which required that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Eldridge operated a vehicle within Ohio while under the influence of alcohol. 2006State v. Benge, 75 Ohio St.3d 136 , 143 , 1996-Ohio-227 . {¶ 42} In reviewing a claim that a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court applies a different test. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bengegreen2 sentences2015State v. Benge, 75 Ohio St.3d 136, 143 , 1996-Ohio-227 . {¶ 7} Eldridge was convicted of OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), which required that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Eldridge operated a vehicle within Ohio while under the influence of alcohol. 2006State v. Benge, 75 Ohio St.3d 136 , 143 , 1996-Ohio-227 . {¶ 42} In reviewing a claim that a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court applies a different test. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Heinishgreen2 sentences2026Consequently, “‘circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if that evidence would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a Pickaway App. No. 25CA16 19 reasonable doubt.’” State v. McKnight, 2005-Ohio-6046 , ¶ 75, quoting State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231, 238 (1990). {¶36} Accordingly, when reviewing an insufficient-evidence claim, an appellate court must construe the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the prosecution. 2026Consequently, “‘circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if that evidence would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a Pickaway App. No. 25CA16 19 reasonable doubt.’” State v. McKnight, 2005-Ohio-6046, ¶ 75, quoting State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231, 238 (1990). {¶36} Accordingly, when reviewing an insufficient-evidence claim, an appellate court must construe the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the prosecution. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grantgreen2 sentences2026E.g., State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 205 (1996); State v. Grant, 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 477 (1993). 2026E.g., State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 205 (1996); State v. Grant, 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 477 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2026E.g., State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 205 (1996); State v. Grant, 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 477 (1993). 2026E.g., State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 205 (1996); State v. Grant, 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 477 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Eastley v. Volkmangreen2 sentences2020Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, at ¶ 12 ; see Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , ¶ 19. 2020Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, at ¶ 12 ; see Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , ¶ 19. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompkinsred1 sentence2014State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). {¶ 29} Similar to an insufficient evidence challenge, when addressing a manifest weight challenge the trier of fact is given great deference in our review. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2014State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). {¶ 29} Similar to an insufficient evidence challenge, when addressing a manifest weight challenge the trier of fact is given great deference in our review. | 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. Wilson, 22581 (2-6-2009)
green
1 sentence2020Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, at ¶ 12 ; see Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , ¶ 19. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2014State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , ¶ 26. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Jenks
red
1 sentence2006"In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, `[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 , 112 , 2005-Ohio-6046 , quoting State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 12} Furthermore, when deciding an insufficient evidence claim, a reviewing court must not substitute its evaluation of the witnesses' credibility for that of the trier of facts. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. McKnight
green
1 sentence2006"In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, `[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 , 112 , 2005-Ohio-6046 , quoting State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 12} Furthermore, when deciding an insufficient evidence claim, a reviewing court must not substitute its evaluation of the witnesses' credibility for that of the trier of facts. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Anderson
green
1 sentence2006See State v. Benge, 75 Ohio St.3d 136 , 143 , 1996-Ohio-227 . {¶ 13} Appellant was found delinquent for violating R.C. 2907.05 (A)(4), which states, in pertinent part: {¶ 14} "(A) No person shall have sexual contact with another * * * when any of the following applies: {¶ 15} "* * * {¶ 16} "(4) The other person, or one of the other persons, is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of that person." {¶ 17} "`Sexual contact' means any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the p | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2005State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , certiorari denied (1998), 523 U.S. 1125 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Frescas v. Loral Vought Systems Corp.
green
1 sentence2005State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , certiorari denied (1998), 523 U.S. 1125 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Freeman
green
1 sentence2002Willard, at 19; citing State v. Freeman (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 408 , 424 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Rohde v. Farmer
green
1 sentence1999Rohde v. Farmer (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 82 , paragraph three of the syllabus. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.