10 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re R.K. (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2020Here, unlike the circumstances in In re R.K. that the Supreme Court deemed insufficient to support a theory of waiver of the right to counsel, the record very strongly suggests that lawyer Chapman never reached his client to advise No. 19AP-269 7 her that she needed to appear at the permanent custody hearing or that "if she failed to appear the trial court would likely go forward without her and that he would request to withdraw." In re R.K., 2018-Ohio-23 at ¶ 25 (O'Donnell, J., dissenting and noting mother's receipt of that communication). {¶ 19} Mr. Chapman never spoke with R.S-W. after the | 1 | 1 |
Daniel Ortega v. Michael O'leary, Wardengreen2 sentences2019Ortega v. O’Leary, 843 F.2d 258, 262 (7th Cir.1988) (“the Chapman standard [for constitutional violations] applies when a petitioner has been denied the right to testify”); Skeens v. Haskins, 4 Fed.Appx. 236, 238 (6th Cir.2001) (“the state appellate court properly applied the harmless-error test of Chapman to Skeens’s claim” that he was denied his right to testify on his own behalf). 2019Ortega v. O’Leary, 843 F.2d 258, 262 (7th Cir.1988) (“the Chapman standard [for constitutional violations] applies when a petitioner has been denied the right to testify”); Skeens v. Haskins, 4 Fed.Appx. 236, 238 (6th Cir.2001) (“the state appellate court properly applied the harmless-error test of Chapman to Skeens’s claim” that he was denied his right to testify on his own behalf). | 1 | 1 |
Skeens v. Haskinsgreen2 sentences2019Ortega v. O’Leary, 843 F.2d 258, 262 (7th Cir.1988) (“the Chapman standard [for constitutional violations] applies when a petitioner has been denied the right to testify”); Skeens v. Haskins, 4 Fed.Appx. 236, 238 (6th Cir.2001) (“the state appellate court properly applied the harmless-error test of Chapman to Skeens’s claim” that he was denied his right to testify on his own behalf). 2019Ortega v. O’Leary, 843 F.2d 258, 262 (7th Cir.1988) (“the Chapman standard [for constitutional violations] applies when a petitioner has been denied the right to testify”); Skeens v. Haskins, 4 Fed.Appx. 236, 238 (6th Cir.2001) (“the state appellate court properly applied the harmless-error test of Chapman to Skeens’s claim” that he was denied his right to testify on his own behalf). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Mitchell (1989), 60 Ohio App.3d 106 , 109 , 574N.E.2d573. {¶ 22} Based on the eyewitness testimony at trial, in particular the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of a purse-snatching from an elderly woman, we cannot say that, but for the failure to give the alleged jury instruction the jury was misled or the outcome of the trial would have been different. 2008See State v. Mitchell (1989), 60 Ohio App.3d 106 , 109 , 574N.E.2d573. {¶ 22} Based on the eyewitness testimony at trial, in particular the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of a purse-snatching from an elderly woman, we cannot say that, but for the failure to give the alleged jury instruction the jury was misled or the outcome of the trial would have been different. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cowansgreen2 sentences1968State v. Cowans (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 96, 104, 105 . 1968State v. Cowans (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 96, 104, 105 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yates v. Evatt
green
2 sentences2004The Chapman test is whether it appears "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." Id. 2004The Chapman test is whether it appears "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." Id. | 2 | 1992–2004 |
Harrington v. California
red
2 sentences1996In Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , the United States Supreme Court held that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Although the court, in Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , claimed to reaffirm the Chapman standard, it focused on the probable impact the tainted evidence had on the jury. 1996In Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , the United States Supreme Court held that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Although the court, in Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , claimed to reaffirm the Chapman standard, it focused on the probable impact the tainted evidence had on the jury. | 2 | 1972–1996 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1996In Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , the United States Supreme Court held that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Although the court, in Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , claimed to reaffirm the Chapman standard, it focused on the probable impact the tainted evidence had on the jury. 1996In Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , the United States Supreme Court held that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Although the court, in Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , claimed to reaffirm the Chapman standard, it focused on the probable impact the tainted evidence had on the jury. | 2 | 1972–1996 |
State v. Chapman
green
1 sentence2011Subsequently, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Chapman’s motion to file a delayed appeal from this court’s decision in Chapman I.1 1State v. Chapman (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1419 , 717 N.E.2d 1106 . 5 {¶ 7} On January 30, 2001 Chapman filed his first Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Sarli
neutral
1 sentence2011Subsequently, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Chapman’s motion to file a delayed appeal from this court’s decision in Chapman I.1 1State v. Chapman (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1419 , 717 N.E.2d 1106 . 5 {¶ 7} On January 30, 2001 Chapman filed his first Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Tabasko
green
2 sentences1992In State v. Tabasko (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 36 , 257 N.E.2d 744 , the Chapman rule was applied to affirm a conviction for knowingly permitting the use of a dwelling for the keeping, dispensing or administering of narcotics, a violation of former R.C. 3719.101. 1992In State v. Tabasko (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 36 , 257 N.E.2d 744 , the Chapman rule was applied to affirm a conviction for knowingly permitting the use of a dwelling for the keeping, dispensing or administering of narcotics, a violation of former R.C. 3719.101. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Commonwealth v. Padgett
green
2 sentences1972Therefore, we are satisfied that the error in failing to suppress the tape was harmless (Chapman v. California [1967], 386 U. S. 18 ) and that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was correct in concluding in Commonwealth v. Padgett (1968), 428 Pa. 229 , “that the United States Supreme Court would hold that Escobedo and Miranda violations are subject to the Chapman rule.” 4 See Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U. S. 250 ; United States v. Sutt (C. 1972Therefore, we are satisfied that the error in failing to suppress the tape was harmless (Chapman v. California [1967], 386 U. S. 18 ) and that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was correct in concluding in Commonwealth v. Padgett (1968), 428 Pa. 229 , “that the United States Supreme Court would hold that Escobedo and Miranda violations are subject to the Chapman rule.” 4 See Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U. S. 250 ; United States v. Sutt (C. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
United States v. Jerry Dean Sutt, A/K/A J. D. King
green
2 sentences1972A. 7, 1969), 415 F. 2d 1305 ; and United States v. Smith (C. 1972A. 7, 1969), 415 F. 2d 1305 ; and United States v. Smith (C. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Harris v. New York
green
2 sentences1972Given the similarity of the principles governing retroactivity and those governing automatic reversal, the Supreme Court’s decision that neither Escobedo nor Miranda are retroactive and its decision that a Wade violation does not require automatic reversal, we conclude that the United States Supreme Court would hold that Escobedo and Miranda violations are also subject to the Chapman rule, a conclusion we hereby follow.” An impeachment case, Padgett , was prior to, and did not have the benefit of, Harris v. New York (1971), 401 U. S. 222 , so that Padgett is now superseded. 1972Given the similarity of the principles governing retroactivity and those governing automatic reversal, the Supreme Court’s decision that neither Escobedo nor Miranda are retroactive and its decision that a Wade violation does not require automatic reversal, we conclude that the United States Supreme Court would hold that Escobedo and Miranda violations are also subject to the Chapman rule, a conclusion we hereby follow.” An impeachment case, Padgett , was prior to, and did not have the benefit of, Harris v. New York (1971), 401 U. S. 222 , so that Padgett is now superseded. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Ross
green
2 sentences1968There are also several California decisions interpreting Chapman and the case of People v. Ross (Sup. Ct. 1967), 60 Cal. Rptr. 254 , 429 P. 2d 606 , contains an extensive discussion of the Chapman rule. 1968There are also several California decisions interpreting Chapman and the case of People v. Ross (Sup. Ct. 1967), 60 Cal. Rptr. 254 , 429 P. 2d 606 , contains an extensive discussion of the Chapman rule. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
People v. Coffey
green
2 sentences1968The Chief Justice chastizes the majority as “misconceiving] the purpose of the harmless error rule as it has developed in the federal courts” and states that by focusing only on the outcome of the case, we disregard procedural fairness and the integrity of the judicial process (also see People v. Coffey [Sup. Ct. 1967], 60 Cal. Rptr. 457 , 430 P. 2d 15 ). 1968The Chief Justice chastizes the majority as “misconceiving] the purpose of the harmless error rule as it has developed in the federal courts” and states that by focusing only on the outcome of the case, we disregard procedural fairness and the integrity of the judicial process (also see People v. Coffey [Sup. Ct. 1967], 60 Cal. Rptr. 457 , 430 P. 2d 15 ). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.