lack of a jury instruction in Ohio

2006State v. Durkin (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 158 , 161 .

2002No. 19599, at 8, citing State v. Durkin (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 158 , 161 .

2025Godsey, 2024-Ohio-629, at ¶ 37-38 (3d Dist.); Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d at 47-48 .

2025It must be remembered that courts exclude tainted pretrial identification in order to “‘protect the defendant from misconduct by the state.’” State v. Gross, 2002-Ohio-5524, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 310 (1988). “‘[W]hen a witness has been confronted with a suspect before trial, due process requires a court to suppress her identification of the suspect if the confrontation was unnecessarily suggestive of the suspect’s guilt and the identification was unreliable under all the circumstances.’” Id., quoting State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 534 (2001), and State v. Waddy

2025It must be remembered that courts exclude tainted pretrial identification in order to “‘protect the defendant from misconduct by the state.’” State v. Gross, 2002-Ohio-5524, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 310 (1988). “‘[W]hen a witness has been confronted with a suspect before trial, due process requires a court to suppress her identification of the suspect if the confrontation was unnecessarily suggestive of the suspect’s guilt and the identification was unreliable under all the circumstances.’” Id., quoting State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 534 (2001), and State v. Waddy

2018In the absence of a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), it is not the role of an appellate court to independently review the record for additional potential errors that were not raised by counsel.

2018In the absence of a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), it is not the role of an appellate court to independently review the record for additional potential errors that were not raised by counsel.

2015It appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the lack of a jury instruction on "flight" did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00217 22 the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). {¶70} As we noted in our disposition of Dorsey's second assignment of

2015It appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the lack of a jury instruction on "flight" did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00217 22 the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). {¶70} As we noted in our disposition of Dorsey's second assignment of

2009State v. Kole (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306 , 750 N.E.2d 148 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .

2009State v. Kole (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306 , 750 N.E.2d 148 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .

2009State v. Kole (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306 , 750 N.E.2d 148 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .

2009State v. Kole (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306 , 750 N.E.2d 148 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .

2005"Even though an offense may be statutorily defined as a lesser included offense of another, a charge on such lesser included offense is required only where the evidence presented at trial would reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction upon the lesser included offense." State v. Thomas (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 213 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2004In State v. Pless, 74 Ohio St.3d 333 , 1996-Ohio-102 , 658 N.E.2d 766 , at paragraph two of the syllabus, the court ruled: "The failure to comply with R.C. 2945.05 may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction." The Court further held that " the sole proposition for which [State ex rel.

2004In State v. Pless, 74 Ohio St.3d 333 , 1996-Ohio-102 , 658 N.E.2d 766 , at paragraph two of the syllabus, the court ruled: "The failure to comply with R.C. 2945.05 may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction." The Court further held that " the sole proposition for which [State ex rel.

2004In State v. Pless, 74 Ohio St.3d 333 , 1996-Ohio-102 , 658 N.E.2d 766 , at paragraph two of the syllabus, the court ruled: "The failure to comply with R.C. 2945.05 may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction." The Court further held that " the sole proposition for which [State ex rel.

2001The circumstances that justify remand to the trial court for sentencing on a lesser included offense have been outlined as follows: “It must be clear (1) that the evidence adduced at trial fails to support one or more elements of the crime of which the appellant was convicted, (2) that such evidence sufficiently sustains all the elements of another offense, (3) that the latter is a lesser included offense of the former, and (4) that no undue prejudice will result to the accused.” Allison v. United States (C.A.D.C. 1969), 409 F.2d 445, 451 .