motions test in Ohio

2007See Grau v. Kleinschmidt (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 84 , 90 , 509 N.E.2d 399 ; Eldridge v. Firestone Tire Rubber Co. (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 94 , 493 N.E.2d 293 .

2007See Grau v. Kleinschmidt (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 84 , 90 , 509 N.E.2d 399 ; Eldridge v. Firestone Tire Rubber Co. (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 94 , 493 N.E.2d 293 .

2022Garrett acknowledges Lorraine’s holding but argues that it should be reexamined. {¶ 238} Garrett cites Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S.Ct. 2516 , 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (2006), and Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S.Ct. 633 , 193 L.Ed.2d 535 (2016), to support his claim.

2022Garrett acknowledges Lorraine’s holding but argues that it should be reexamined. {¶ 238} Garrett cites Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S.Ct. 2516 , 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (2006), and Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S.Ct. 633 , 193 L.Ed.2d 535 (2016), to support his claim.

2022Garrett acknowledges Lorraine’s holding but argues that it should be reexamined. {¶ 238} Garrett cites Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S.Ct. 2516 , 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (2006), and Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S.Ct. 633 , 193 L.Ed.2d 535 (2016), to support his claim.

2022Garrett acknowledges Lorraine’s holding but argues that it should be reexamined. {¶ 238} Garrett cites Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S.Ct. 2516 , 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (2006), and Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S.Ct. 633 , 193 L.Ed.2d 535 (2016), to support his claim.

2022The trial court explained to counsel at a motions hearing: “Certainly Counsel can argue mercy as under the catchall. * * * [B]ut I’m not going to give a specific instruction * * * that you must consider mercy as one of the mitigating factors.” {¶ 237} We have held that “[p]ermitting a jury to consider mercy, which is not a mitigating factor and thus irrelevant to sentencing, would violate the well- established principle that the death penalty must not be administered in an 71 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO arbitrary, capricious or unpredictable manner.” State v. Lorraine, 66 Ohio St.3d 414, 417 , 613 N

2022The trial court explained to counsel at a motions hearing: “Certainly Counsel can argue mercy as under the catchall. * * * [B]ut I’m not going to give a specific instruction * * * that you must consider mercy as one of the mitigating factors.” {¶ 237} We have held that “[p]ermitting a jury to consider mercy, which is not a mitigating factor and thus irrelevant to sentencing, would violate the well- established principle that the death penalty must not be administered in an 71 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO arbitrary, capricious or unpredictable manner.” State v. Lorraine, 66 Ohio St.3d 414, 417 , 613 N

2022No. 05AP-242, 2006-Ohio-946, ¶ 15 , citing State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67 (1981) (adding that "the decision of a trial court regarding a motion for a continuance will not be reversed on appeal unless the trial court has abused its discretion").

2019In Dayton v. Baker, 86 Ohio St.3d 40 , 711 N.E.2d 66 (1999), the court observed: "Before they enter full-time practice, lawyers need to understand their duties as 'officers of the court.' They need to learn to care about the law, about their clients, and about their own image as professionals. * * * Respondent put himself at a disadvantage at the outset by not being properly prepared to manage a professional law practice." {¶123} We think it reasonable that given Attorney Kastner had entered an appearance in the case since shortly after its commencement, had not requested permission to withdra

2015Transcript, Motions hearing 1/31/13, pg.10, citing U.S. v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 , 98 Sup. Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978).

2015Transcript, Motions hearing 1/31/13, pg.10, citing U.S. v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 , 98 Sup. Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978).

2015State v. Wipf, 397 F. 3d 677 (8th Cir. 2005). {¶ 13} Prior to trial, Jackson filed a motion in limine, asking the court to allow evidence of a previous incident, reported to the police, when the minor victim D.S. accused another individual of sexual contact, to support Jackson’s defense of an alternative suspect.

2011An abuse of discretion “ ‘implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ” Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 . {¶ 97} The record indicates that Kramer’s counsel attempted to question the court at the motions hearing about the electronic docketing system and about whether the court had complied with S. Ct. Sup. R. 27, which requires that local rules of practice that relate to information technology be submitted to the Supreme Court Commission on Technology and the Courts for review.

2007Partnership (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 731 , 742-43 , 700 N.E.2d 918 , citing McKenney v. Hillside Dairy Co. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 164 , 176 , 671 N.E.2d 1291 and Pariseau v. Wedge Products, Inc. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 124 , 127 , 522 N.E.2d 511 . {¶ 12} The motions test the legal sufficiency of the evidence and present a question of law, which we review independently, i.e., de novo, upon appeal.

2007Partnership (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 731 , 742-43 , 700 N.E.2d 918 , citing McKenney v. Hillside Dairy Co. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 164 , 176 , 671 N.E.2d 1291 and Pariseau v. Wedge Products, Inc. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 124 , 127 , 522 N.E.2d 511 . {¶ 12} The motions test the legal sufficiency of the evidence and present a question of law, which we review independently, i.e., de novo, upon appeal.

2007Partnership (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 731 , 742-43 , 700 N.E.2d 918 , citing McKenney v. Hillside Dairy Co. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 164 , 176 , 671 N.E.2d 1291 and Pariseau v. Wedge Products, Inc. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 124 , 127 , 522 N.E.2d 511 . {¶ 12} The motions test the legal sufficiency of the evidence and present a question of law, which we review independently, i.e., de novo, upon appeal.

2007Partnership (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 731 , 742-43 , 700 N.E.2d 918 , citing McKenney v. Hillside Dairy Co. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 164 , 176 , 671 N.E.2d 1291 and Pariseau v. Wedge Products, Inc. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 124 , 127 , 522 N.E.2d 511 . {¶ 12} The motions test the legal sufficiency of the evidence and present a question of law, which we review independently, i.e., de novo, upon appeal.

2007Partnership (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 731 , 742-43 , 700 N.E.2d 918 , citing McKenney v. Hillside Dairy Co. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 164 , 176 , 671 N.E.2d 1291 and Pariseau v. Wedge Products, Inc. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 124 , 127 , 522 N.E.2d 511 . {¶ 12} The motions test the legal sufficiency of the evidence and present a question of law, which we review independently, i.e., de novo, upon appeal.

2007Partnership (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 731 , 742-43 , 700 N.E.2d 918 , citing McKenney v. Hillside Dairy Co. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 164 , 176 , 671 N.E.2d 1291 and Pariseau v. Wedge Products, Inc. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 124 , 127 , 522 N.E.2d 511 . {¶ 12} The motions test the legal sufficiency of the evidence and present a question of law, which we review independently, i.e., de novo, upon appeal.