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.
9 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2026 6 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. Lunsfordgreen2 sentences2025Indeed, “[a] victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A) if [S.E.]’s testimony proves all the elements of the offense.” Id. {¶26} We hold that S.E.’s identification testimony was sufficient to prove that Sawyer was her assailant. 2024"A victim's testimony is all that is needed to 'sustain a conviction for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A) if the victim's testimony proves all the elements of the offense.'" State v. Wing, 2023-Ohio-4171, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Lunsford, 2020-Ohio-965, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences2026Accordingly, the applicable standard ‘is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ State v. Reed, 2024-Ohio-4838, ¶ 30 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio- 38, ¶ 62 (3d Dist.). {¶29} To establish a conviction for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), the State must prove that the defendant “knowingly cause[d] or attempt[ed] to cause physical harm to another . . . .” Pursuant to R.C. 2903.13(C)(4)(a), this offense is 2026Accordingly, the applicable standard ‘is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ State v. Reed, 2024-Ohio-4838, ¶ 30 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio- 38, ¶ 62 (3d Dist.). {¶29} To establish a conviction for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), the State must prove that the defendant “knowingly cause[d] or attempt[ed] to cause physical harm to another . . . .” Pursuant to R.C. 2903.13(C)(4)(a), this offense is | 1 | 1 |
State v. Winggreen1 sentence2024"A victim's testimony is all that is needed to 'sustain a conviction for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A) if the victim's testimony proves all the elements of the offense.'" State v. Wing, 2023-Ohio-4171, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Lunsford, 2020-Ohio-965, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2022“A victim’s testimony is all that is needed to ‘sustain a conviction for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A) if the victim’s testimony proves all the elements of the offense.’” State v. Lewis, 2020-Ohio-3762 , 156 N.E.3d 281, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Lunsford, 12th Dist. 2022“A victim’s testimony is all that is needed to ‘sustain a conviction for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A) if the victim’s testimony proves all the elements of the offense.’” State v. Lewis, 2020-Ohio-3762 , 156 N.E.3d 281, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Lunsford, 12th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Toledo v. Raineygreen1 sentence2020Lucas No. L-18-1270, 2019-Ohio-4618, ¶ 6 (assault conviction in violation of R.C. 2903.13[A] affirmed based on victim's testimony since "[t]here was no need for her testimony to be corroborated"). | 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. Gesell, Unpublished Decision (7-17-2006)
green
1 sentence2020State v. Gesell, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-08-367, 2006-Ohio-3621, ¶ 47 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Perry
green
1 sentence2011In State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175 , at ¶9 of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court stated: {¶ 8} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.” 4 {¶ 9} Defendant’s claim that his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly, intel | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.