82 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences2017Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). "[T]here must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error." Hungler v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (1986). {¶ 19} In this case, Wiggins points to nothing in the record to support this claim. 2008See *Page 25 Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 199 (holding that a defendant claiming error on appeal has the burden of proving the error by reference to matters in the appellate record). {¶ 64} For all these reasons, we conclude that appellant's counsel did not render ineffective assistance. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Schaimgreen2 sentences2026“A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court with sufficient information so that it can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and he must demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charges for trial.” State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (1981), syllabus. {¶ 19} “When a defendant claims that he was prejudiced by the joinder of multiple 2023“A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court with sufficient information so that it can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and he must demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charges for -8- trial.” State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981), syllabus. {¶ 20} “When a defendant claims that he was prejudiced by th | 3 | 9 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2026“A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced.” Torres at 343 , citing State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170, 175 (1980). 1993The accused may move to sever the charges under Crim.R. 14, which provides: “If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of . offenses * * * or by such joinder for trial together of indictments * * * the court shall order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants, or provide such other relief as justice requires.” (Emphasis added.) The Ohio Supreme Court in the syllabus of Torres, supra, set forth that a defendant must demonstrate prejudice and an abuse of discretion in denying the severance, as follows: “A defendant claiming error in | 3 | 8 |
State v. Hamblingreen2 sentences2026“A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court with sufficient information so that it can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and he must demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charges for trial.” State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (1981), syllabus. {¶ 19} “When a defendant claims that he was prejudiced by the joinder of multiple 2023“A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court with sufficient information so that it can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and he must demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charges for -8- trial.” State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981), syllabus. {¶ 20} “When a defendant claims that he was prejudiced by th | 3 | 7 |
Hungler v. City of Cincinnatigreen2 sentences2017Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). "[T]here must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error." Hungler v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (1986). {¶ 19} In this case, Wiggins points to nothing in the record to support this claim. 2017Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). "[T]here must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error." (Emphasis sic.) Hungler v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (1986). {¶ 30} First, we note that Stephens' purported recorded statement is not in the record. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Lottgreen2 sentences2023While joinder is favored and “is a viable trial procedure, an accused may move to sever under Crim.R. 14 upon a showing of prejudice.” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163 , 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990). {¶ 18} “A defendant claiming error in the trial court's refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court with sufficient information so that it can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant's right to a fair trial, and he must demonstrate that the court 2023While joinder is favored and “is a viable trial procedure, an accused may move to sever under Crim.R. 14 upon a showing of prejudice.” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163 , 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990). {¶ 18} “A defendant claiming error in the trial court's refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court with sufficient information so that it can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant's right to a fair trial, and he must demonstrate that the court | 1 | 2 |
State v. Franklingreen2 sentences2018In ruling on a motion by a defendant for severance, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to deliver to the court for inspection pursuant to Rule 16(B)(1) any statements or confessions made by the defendants which the state intends to introduce in evidence at the trial. {¶ 32} The standard of review on this issue is set forth in State v. Torres , 66 Ohio St.2d 340 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 , (1981) syllabus: A defendant claiming error in the trial court's refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudic 2018In ruling on a motion by a defendant for severance, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to deliver to the court for inspection pursuant to Rule 16(B)(1) any statements or confessions made by the defendants which the state intends to introduce in evidence at the trial. {¶ 32} The standard of review on this issue is set forth in State v. Torres , 66 Ohio St.2d 340 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 , (1981) syllabus: A defendant claiming error in the trial court's refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudic | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wrightgreen1 sentence2025Evidence is ‘simple and direct’ if (1) the jury is capable of readily separating the proof required for each offense, (2) the evidence is unlikely to confuse jurors, (3) the evidence is straightforward, and (4) there is little danger that the jury would ‘improperly consider testimony on one offense as corroborative of the other.’ State v. Gideon, 2021-Ohio-1863, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting Valentine, 2019-Ohio- 2243, at ¶ 47, quoting State v. Wright, 2017-Ohio-8702, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.). {¶13} The simple and direct test is applied “to prevent the finder of fact from confusing the offenses.” State v. Va | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gideongreen1 sentence2025Evidence is ‘simple and direct’ if (1) the jury is capable of readily separating the proof required for each offense, (2) the evidence is unlikely to confuse jurors, (3) the evidence is straightforward, and (4) there is little danger that the jury would ‘improperly consider testimony on one offense as corroborative of the other.’ State v. Gideon, 2021-Ohio-1863, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting Valentine, 2019-Ohio- 2243, at ¶ 47, quoting State v. Wright, 2017-Ohio-8702, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.). {¶13} The simple and direct test is applied “to prevent the finder of fact from confusing the offenses.” State v. Va | 1 | 1 |
State v. Varney, 07ca18/07ap18 (10-6-2008)green1 sentence2025Evidence is ‘simple and direct’ if (1) the jury is capable of readily separating the proof required for each offense, (2) the evidence is unlikely to confuse jurors, (3) the evidence is straightforward, and (4) there is little danger that the jury would ‘improperly consider testimony on one offense as corroborative of the other.’ State v. Gideon, 2021-Ohio-1863, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting Valentine, 2019-Ohio- 2243, at ¶ 47, quoting State v. Wright, 2017-Ohio-8702, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.). {¶13} The simple and direct test is applied “to prevent the finder of fact from confusing the offenses.” State v. Va | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fletcher, Unpublished Decision (8-27-2004)green1 sentence2025“A defendant claiming error based upon the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced.” State v. McBride, 2011-Ohio-1490 , ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). {¶12} A defendant’s claim of prejudice is negated when the evidence for the offenses subject to joinder is “simple and direct, so that a jury is capable of segregating the proof required for each offense.” State v. Shook, 2014-Ohio-3987, ¶ 21 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Fletcher, 2004-Ohio-4517, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Samuelsgreen1 sentence2025The fact that a jury heard cumulative evidence against the defendant “does not by itself demonstrate prejudice, as that fact is true in every trial where indictments or defendants are jointly tried.” State v. Samuels, 2012-Ohio-5401, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shookgreen1 sentence2025“A defendant claiming error based upon the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced.” State v. McBride, 2011-Ohio-1490 , ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). {¶12} A defendant’s claim of prejudice is negated when the evidence for the offenses subject to joinder is “simple and direct, so that a jury is capable of segregating the proof required for each offense.” State v. Shook, 2014-Ohio-3987, ¶ 21 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Fletcher, 2004-Ohio-4517, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Nathan L. Drew v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2023“If the evidence of other crimes would be admissible at separate trials, any ‘prejudice that might result from the jury's hearing the evidence of the other crime in a joint trial would be no different from that possible in separate trials,’ and a court need not inquire further.” Id., quoting Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85, 90 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fautenberrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stacy v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Colemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Munters Corp. v. Matsui America, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Martinez v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Martingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Adams v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Et Al.green | 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. Torres
green
2 sentences2026“A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court with sufficient information so that it can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and he must demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charges for trial.” State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (1981), syllabus. {¶ 19} “When a defendant claims that he was prejudiced by the joinder of multiple 2026Crim.R. 14 requires the trial court to order separate trials “[i]f it appears that a defendant . . . is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses.” {¶ 60} “A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court with sufficient information so that it can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and he must demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charge | 62 | 1985–2026 |
State v. Sapp
green
2 sentences2012State v. Sapp, 105 Ohio St.3d 104 , 2004-Ohio-7008 , 822 N.E.2d 1239, ¶69 , citing State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340, 343 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). {¶36} However, a party waives any claim of error by failing to raise an objection to the joinder. 2012State v. Sapp, 105 Ohio St.3d 104 , 2004-Ohio-7008 , 822 N.E.2d 1239, ¶69 , citing State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340, 343 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). {¶36} However, a party waives any claim of error by failing to raise an objection to the joinder. | 5 | 2005–2012 |
State v. Patel, 24024 (9-17-2008)
green
2 sentences2013No. 24024, 2008-Ohio-4692, ¶ 52 , quoting State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (1981), syllabus. 2012No. 24024, 2008-Ohio-4692, ¶ 52 , quoting State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (1981), syllabus. | 4 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1993The accused may move to sever the charges under Crim.R. 14, which provides: “If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of . offenses * * * or by such joinder for trial together of indictments * * * the court shall order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants, or provide such other relief as justice requires.” (Emphasis added.) The Ohio Supreme Court in the syllabus of Torres, supra, set forth that a defendant must demonstrate prejudice and an abuse of discretion in denying the severance, as follows: “A defendant claiming error in 1993The accused may move to sever the charges under Crim.R. 14, which provides: “If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of . offenses * * * or by such joinder for trial together of indictments * * * the court shall order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants, or provide such other relief as justice requires.” (Emphasis added.) The Ohio Supreme Court in the syllabus of Torres, supra, set forth that a defendant must demonstrate prejudice and an abuse of discretion in denying the severance, as follows: “A defendant claiming error in | 3 | 1981–2003 |
State v. Gordon
green
2 sentences2024State v. Gordon, 152 Ohio St.3d 528 , 2018-Ohio-259 , 98 N.E.3d 251, ¶ 21 , citing Torres at syllabus. 2024State v. Gordon, 152 Ohio St.3d 528 , 2018-Ohio-259 , 98 N.E.3d 251, ¶ 21 , citing Torres at syllabus. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
State v. Spaulding (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026State v. Spaulding, 2016-Ohio-8126, ¶ 62 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Knuff
green
1 sentence2025“A defendant claiming error in the denial of severance must affirmatively show that his rights were prejudiced and that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant separate trials.” State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 46 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hand
green
2 sentences2024State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378, 2006-Ohio-18, 840 N.E.2d 151, ¶ 166. 2024State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2006-Ohio-18 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , ¶ 166. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Meyer v. United Airlines, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2023State v. Gordon, 152 Ohio St.3d 528 , 2018-Ohio-2595 , 98 N.E.3d 251, ¶ 21 , quoting State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981), syllabus. 16. {¶ 40} The state can use two methods to defeat a defendant’s claim of prejudice under Crim.R. 14: the “other acts” test or the more lenient “joinder” test. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023State v. Johnson, 88 Ohio St.3d 95, 109 , 723 N.E.2d 1054 (2000). 2023State v. Johnson, 88 Ohio St.3d 95, 109 , 723 N.E.2d 1054 (2000). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Brinkley
green
1 sentence2016State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2005-Ohio-1507 , ¶ 28. {¶39} Crim.R. 14, Relief from Prejudicial Joinder states: If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment, information, or complaint, or by such joinder for trial together of indictments, informations or complaints, the court shall order an election or separate trial of counts, grant a severance of defendants, or provide such other relief as justice requires. -19- A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. LaMar
green
1 sentence2015“Crim.R. 8(A) also allows joinder of two or more offenses that ‘are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.’ ” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128 , 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 49 , quoting Crim.R. 8(A). {¶ 48} “A defendant claiming error in the trial court's refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. LaMar
green
2 sentences2015“Crim.R. 8(A) also allows joinder of two or more offenses that ‘are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.’ ” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128 , 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 49 , quoting Crim.R. 8(A). {¶ 48} “A defendant claiming error in the trial court's refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court 2015“Crim.R. 8(A) also allows joinder of two or more offenses that ‘are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.’ ” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128 , 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 49 , quoting Crim.R. 8(A). {¶ 48} “A defendant claiming error in the trial court's refusal to allow separate trials of multiple charges under Crim.R. 14 has the burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced; he must furnish the trial court | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Massaro v. United States
green
2 sentences2011Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 . “[T]here must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error.” Hungler v. Cincinnati (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (emphasis sic). {¶50} In Massaro v. United States (2003), 538 U.S. 500 , 123 S.Ct. 1690 , 155 L.Ed.2d 714 , the United States Supreme Court emphasized the general unreviewability of trial counsel ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal. {¶51} “When an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct appeal, appellate counsel and the court must proceed on a trial re 2011Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 . “[T]here must be sufficient basis in the record * * * upon which the court can decide that error.” Hungler v. Cincinnati (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 338, 342 (emphasis sic). {¶50} In Massaro v. United States (2003), 538 U.S. 500 , 123 S.Ct. 1690 , 155 L.Ed.2d 714 , the United States Supreme Court emphasized the general unreviewability of trial counsel ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal. {¶51} “When an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct appeal, appellate counsel and the court must proceed on a trial re | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Purkiser, Unpublished Decision (8-4-2006)
neutral
1 sentence2007State v. Purkhiser , Miami App. No. 2005 CA 34, 2006-Ohio-4014 , ¶ 8 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Fletcher v. Northwest Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Fletcher v. Northwest Mechanical Contr., Inc. (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 466 , 484-485 , 599 N.E.2d 822 . {¶ 13} In the instant matter, both Appellant and Blackshear asked the trial court to sever their trials. 2006Fletcher v. Northwest Mechanical Contr., Inc. (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 466 , 484-485 , 599 N.E.2d 822 . {¶ 13} In the instant matter, both Appellant and Blackshear asked the trial court to sever their trials. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Benner green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Radecki v. Lammers green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Greene v. Ohio green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Green v. Armstrong Rubber Co. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Gullick v. New Hampshire green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.