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.
11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2019 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. Ashworthgreen2 sentences2019Id. at 62 . {¶48} In the direct appeal of this case, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that the trial court conducted an Ashworth hearing prior to accepting Obermiller’s waiver of mitigation and “reasonably concluded that his decision to waive mitigation was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” Obermiller I, 147 Ohio St.3d 175, at fn. 3, ¶ 141 . 2019Id. at 62 . {¶48} In the direct appeal of this case, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that the trial court conducted an Ashworth hearing prior to accepting Obermiller’s waiver of mitigation and “reasonably concluded that his decision to waive mitigation was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” Obermiller I, 147 Ohio St.3d 175, at fn. 3, ¶ 141 . | 5 | 11 |
State v. Bartongreen2 sentences2017Principles of law {¶ 193} In State v. Ashworth , 85 Ohio St.3d 56 , 706 N.E.2d 1231 (1999), paragraph one of the syllabus, we held: "In a capital case, when a defendant wishes to waive the presentation of all mitigating evidence, a trial court must conduct an inquiry of the defendant on the record to determine whether the waiver is knowing and voluntary." (Emphasis sic.) As part of the inquiry, the trial court must determine "whether the defendant understands his or her rights both in the plea process and in the sentencing proceedings." Id. at 62 , 706 N.E.2d 1231 . {¶ 194} The "[p]resentation 2017Principles of law {¶ 193} In State v. Ashworth , 85 Ohio St.3d 56 , 706 N.E.2d 1231 (1999), paragraph one of the syllabus, we held: "In a capital case, when a defendant wishes to waive the presentation of all mitigating evidence, a trial court must conduct an inquiry of the defendant on the record to determine whether the waiver is knowing and voluntary." (Emphasis sic.) As part of the inquiry, the trial court must determine "whether the defendant understands his or her rights both in the plea process and in the sentencing proceedings." Id. at 62 , 706 N.E.2d 1231 . {¶ 194} The "[p]resentation | 2 | 3 |
State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2019Id. at 62 . {¶48} In the direct appeal of this case, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that the trial court conducted an Ashworth hearing prior to accepting Obermiller’s waiver of mitigation and “reasonably concluded that his decision to waive mitigation was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” Obermiller I, 147 Ohio St.3d 175, at fn. 3, ¶ 141 . 2019Id. at 62 . {¶48} In the direct appeal of this case, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that the trial court conducted an Ashworth hearing prior to accepting Obermiller’s waiver of mitigation and “reasonably concluded that his decision to waive mitigation was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” Obermiller I, 147 Ohio St.3d 175, at fn. 3, ¶ 141 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Minkgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350 , 2004-Ohio-1580 , 805 N.E.2d 1064 , ¶ 113-114; State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184 , 2003-Ohio-3193 , 790 N.E.2d 303 , ¶ 22. {¶ 48} In this case, we reject Barton’s contention that the facts and circumstances warranted an Ashworth inquiry, because Barton did not waive the presentation of all mitigating evidence. 2006See State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350 , 2004-Ohio-1580 , 805 N.E.2d 1064 , ¶ 113-114; State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184 , 2003-Ohio-3193 , 790 N.E.2d 303 , ¶ 22. {¶ 48} In this case, we reject Barton’s contention that the facts and circumstances warranted an Ashworth inquiry, because Barton did not waive the presentation of all mitigating evidence. | 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. Roberts
green
2 sentences2017State v. Roberts , 110 Ohio St.3d 71 , 2006-Ohio-3665 , 850 N.E.2d 1168 , ¶ 143. 2017State v. Roberts , 110 Ohio St.3d 71 , 2006-Ohio-3665 , 850 N.E.2d 1168 , ¶ 143. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2012Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . {¶26} The trial court conducted an Ashworth hearing to determine whether Fry’s waiver of his right to present mitigating evidence was knowingly and intelligently made. 2012Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . {¶26} The trial court conducted an Ashworth hearing to determine whether Fry’s waiver of his right to present mitigating evidence was knowingly and intelligently made. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Vrabel
green
2 sentences2006See State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350 , 2004-Ohio-1580 , 805 N.E.2d 1064 , ¶ 113-114; State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184 , 2003-Ohio-3193 , 790 N.E.2d 303 , ¶ 22. {¶ 48} In this case, we reject Barton’s contention that the facts and circumstances warranted an Ashworth inquiry, because Barton did not waive the presentation of all mitigating evidence. 2006See State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350 , 2004-Ohio-1580 , 805 N.E.2d 1064 , ¶ 113-114; State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184 , 2003-Ohio-3193 , 790 N.E.2d 303 , ¶ 22. {¶ 48} In this case, we reject Barton’s contention that the facts and circumstances warranted an Ashworth inquiry, because Barton did not waive the presentation of all mitigating evidence. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Monroe
green
2 sentences2006Monroe called a former neighbor to testify in his behalf * * State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St.3d 384 , 2005-Ohio-2282 , 827 N.E.2d 285 , ¶ 98. 2006Monroe called a former neighbor to testify in his behalf * * State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St.3d 384 , 2005-Ohio-2282 , 827 N.E.2d 285 , ¶ 98. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.