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 1993–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Skinner v. Brooksgreen2 sentences1997We recognize that a defendant may be relieved of liability for tortious conduct by proving that such conduct was in self-defense. 1 Restatement of Torts, supra, Section 63 et seq.; see, also, Skinner v. Brooks (1944), 74 Ohio App. 288, 292 , 29 O.O. 437, 438 , 58 N.E.2d 697, 698 (burden of proving affirmative defense is on defendant). 1997We recognize that a defendant may be relieved of liability for tortious conduct by proving that such conduct was in self-defense. 1 Restatement of Torts, supra, Section 63 et seq.; see, also, Skinner v. Brooks (1944), 74 Ohio App. 288, 292 , 29 O.O. 437, 438 , 58 N.E.2d 697, 698 (burden of proving affirmative defense is on defendant). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Getsygreen2 sentences2024“One of the essential features of the defense of duress is a sense of immediate, imminent death, or serious bodily injury if the actor does not commit the act as instructed.” State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180, 199 , 702 N.E.2d 866 (1998), citing Cross at 487 . 2020“All the conditions must be met, and the court must find as a matter of law that the evidence is sufficient to warrant an instruction on the affirmative defense of necessity or duress.” State v. Cross, 58 Ohio St.2d 482, 488 (1979). “‘If the evidence generates only a mere speculation or possible doubt, such evidence is insufficient to raise the affirmative defense, and submission of the issue to the jury will be unwarranted.’” Flinders at ¶ 29, quoting State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180, 198-199 (1998). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Crossgreen2 sentences2020“All the conditions must be met, and the court must find as a matter of law that the evidence is sufficient to warrant an instruction on the affirmative defense of necessity or duress.” State v. Cross, 58 Ohio St.2d 482, 488 (1979). “‘If the evidence generates only a mere speculation or possible doubt, such evidence is insufficient to raise the affirmative defense, and submission of the issue to the jury will be unwarranted.’” Flinders at ¶ 29, quoting State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180, 198-199 (1998). 2008A court, however, may "refuse to give an instruction which is not applicable to the evidence governing the case. . . ." State v. Cross , 58 Ohio St. 2d 482 , 488 (1979). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Singletongreen1 sentence2014Cuyahoga No. 98301, 2013-Ohio-1440, ¶ 23 (where trial court gave both preliminary and cautionary instructions after jury was empaneled and sworn in, prior to opening statements, but did not repeat these instructions, only reading and submitting written instructions to the jury on the elements, definitions of each offense, and complicity at the close of trial, trial court did not commit plain error in failing to comply with Crim.R. 30(A)), citing State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 (1983); see also State v. Demecs, 6th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Melchiorgreen2 sentences2010See Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d at 20-21 , 10 O.O.3d 8 , 381 N.E.2d 195 . 2010See Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d at 20-21 , 10 O.O.3d 8 , 381 N.E.2d 195 . | 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. Payne
green
2 sentences2017The court found that where the record contained "some credible, competent evidence supporting a finding of blackout * * * an instruction on the affirmative defense of blackout had to be given." Id. at 850, 621 N.E.2d 812 , citing State v. Payne, 104 Ohio App. 410 , 149 N.E.2d 583 (10th Dist.1957). 3. 2017The court found that where the record contained "some credible, competent evidence supporting a finding of blackout * * * an instruction on the affirmative defense of blackout had to be given." Id. at 850, 621 N.E.2d 812 , citing State v. Payne, 104 Ohio App. 410 , 149 N.E.2d 583 (10th Dist.1957). 3. | 2 | 1993–2017 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2017Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed 2d 674 (1984). 2017Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed 2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Lafreniere
green
1 sentence2017The court found that where the record contained "some credible, competent evidence supporting a finding of blackout * * * an instruction on the affirmative defense of blackout had to be given." Id. at 850, 621 N.E.2d 812 , citing State v. Payne, 104 Ohio App. 410 , 149 N.E.2d 583 (10th Dist.1957). 3. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
cluster 766374
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Underwood
green
2 sentences2014Cuyahoga No. 98301, 2013-Ohio-1440, ¶ 23 (where trial court gave both preliminary and cautionary instructions after jury was empaneled and sworn in, prior to opening statements, but did not repeat these instructions, only reading and submitting written instructions to the jury on the elements, definitions of each offense, and complicity at the close of trial, trial court did not commit plain error in failing to comply with Crim.R. 30(A)), citing State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 (1983); see also State v. Demecs, 6th Dist. 2014Cuyahoga No. 98301, 2013-Ohio-1440, ¶ 23 (where trial court gave both preliminary and cautionary instructions after jury was empaneled and sworn in, prior to opening statements, but did not repeat these instructions, only reading and submitting written instructions to the jury on the elements, definitions of each offense, and complicity at the close of trial, trial court did not commit plain error in failing to comply with Crim.R. 30(A)), citing State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 (1983); see also State v. Demecs, 6th Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2010The court in Melchior also stated that “[ejvidence is sufficient where a reasonable doubt of guilt has arisen based upon a claim of self-defense. * * * If the evidence generates only a mere speculation or possible doubt, such evidence is insufficient to raise the affirmative defense, and submission of the issue to the jury will be unwarranted.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 20 . {¶ 10} At trial, Belanger requested an instruction on the affirmative defense of self-defense, which required him to show, inter alia, that he had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.