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 1 courts 2005–2017 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. Bakergreen2 sentences2017While, generally, it is improper for an attorney to express his or her personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness, “it is not prosecutorial misconduct to characterize a witness as a liar or a claim as a lie if the evidence reasonably supports the characterization.” State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2014-Ohio-4751 , 23 N.E.3d 1096, ¶ 197 ; State v. Baker, 159 Ohio App.3d 462 , 2005-Ohio-45 , 824 N.E.2d 162, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.). 2017While, generally, it is improper for an attorney to express his or her personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness, “it is not prosecutorial misconduct to characterize a witness as a liar or a claim as a lie if the evidence reasonably supports the characterization.” State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2014-Ohio-4751 , 23 N.E.3d 1096, ¶ 197 ; State v. Baker, 159 Ohio App.3d 462 , 2005-Ohio-45 , 824 N.E.2d 162, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.). | 4 | 9 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2017While, generally, it is improper for an attorney to express his or her personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness, “it is not prosecutorial misconduct to characterize a witness as a liar or a claim as a lie if the evidence reasonably supports the characterization.” State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2014-Ohio-4751 , 23 N.E.3d 1096, ¶ 197 ; State v. Baker, 159 Ohio App.3d 462 , 2005-Ohio-45 , 824 N.E.2d 162, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.). 2017While, generally, it is improper for an attorney to express his or her personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness, “it is not prosecutorial misconduct to characterize a witness as a liar or a claim as a lie if the evidence reasonably supports the characterization.” State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2014-Ohio-4751 , 23 N.E.3d 1096, ¶ 197 ; State v. Baker, 159 Ohio App.3d 462 , 2005-Ohio-45 , 824 N.E.2d 162, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2015State v. Smith (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14 , 14 OBR 317, 470 N.E.2d 883 . 2015State v. Smith (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14 , 14 OBR 317, 470 N.E.2d 883 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Benge
green
2 sentences2008Benge , 75 Ohio St.3d at 141 , 661 N.E.2d 1019 , 1996-Ohio-227 . {¶ 53} "It is not prosecutorial misconduct to characterize a witness as a liar or a claim as a lie if the evidence reasonably supports the characterization. 2008Benge , 75 Ohio St.3d at 141 , 661 N.E.2d 1019 , 1996-Ohio-227 . {¶ 53} "It is not prosecutorial misconduct to characterize a witness as a liar or a claim as a lie if the evidence reasonably supports the characterization. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Benge
green
1 sentence2008Benge , 75 Ohio St.3d at 141 , 661 N.E.2d 1019 , 1996-Ohio-227 . {¶ 53} "It is not prosecutorial misconduct to characterize a witness as a liar or a claim as a lie if the evidence reasonably supports the characterization. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Loza
green
1 sentence2007State v. Loza (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 61 , 78 . *Page 7 {¶ 17} In reviewing Mr. Hashman's claim, we note that "[i]t is not prosecutorial misconduct to characterize a witness as a liar or a claim as a lie if the evidence reasonably supports the characterization. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Snyder v. Stanford
red
2 sentences2006"But inferences drawn from the evidence in the cases are a legitimate subject of argument." Jackson v. Booth Memorial Hospital (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 176 , 180 , 547 N.E.2d 1203 . {¶ 80} "Ordinarily, in order to support a reversal of a judgment on the ground of misconduct of counsel in his * * * closing argument to the jury, it is necessary that a proper and timely objection be made to the claimed improper remark so that the court may take proper action thereon." Snyder v. Stanford (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 31 , syllabus, 238 N.E.2d 563 . 2006"But inferences drawn from the evidence in the cases are a legitimate subject of argument." Jackson v. Booth Memorial Hospital (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 176 , 180 , 547 N.E.2d 1203 . {¶ 80} "Ordinarily, in order to support a reversal of a judgment on the ground of misconduct of counsel in his * * * closing argument to the jury, it is necessary that a proper and timely objection be made to the claimed improper remark so that the court may take proper action thereon." Snyder v. Stanford (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 31 , syllabus, 238 N.E.2d 563 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Jackson v. Booth Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2006"But inferences drawn from the evidence in the cases are a legitimate subject of argument." Jackson v. Booth Memorial Hospital (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 176 , 180 , 547 N.E.2d 1203 . {¶ 80} "Ordinarily, in order to support a reversal of a judgment on the ground of misconduct of counsel in his * * * closing argument to the jury, it is necessary that a proper and timely objection be made to the claimed improper remark so that the court may take proper action thereon." Snyder v. Stanford (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 31 , syllabus, 238 N.E.2d 563 . 2006"But inferences drawn from the evidence in the cases are a legitimate subject of argument." Jackson v. Booth Memorial Hospital (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 176 , 180 , 547 N.E.2d 1203 . {¶ 80} "Ordinarily, in order to support a reversal of a judgment on the ground of misconduct of counsel in his * * * closing argument to the jury, it is necessary that a proper and timely objection be made to the claimed improper remark so that the court may take proper action thereon." Snyder v. Stanford (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 31 , syllabus, 238 N.E.2d 563 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Pollard v. Hunt
green
1 sentence2006"Although counsel may not make unwarranted attacks on a witness's character, it is not improper to characterize a witness as a liar or a claim as a lie if the evidence reasonably supports the characterization." Id. | 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.