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 2009–2025 3 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 D.D., 22740 (2-20-2009)green2 sentences2025Therefore, “[w]here the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” (Citations omitted.) In re D.D., 2009-Ohio-808, ¶ 3 (2d Dist.). {¶ 28} We find that a motion to suppress the evidence from Minter’s cell phone based on an alleged violation of Evid.R. 901(A) would not have been successful because a motion to suppress is not the proper vehicle to challenge the authenticity of the evidence. 2021Strickland at 697 . {¶ 29} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. -14- Montgomery No. 22740, 2009-Ohio-808, ¶ 3 , citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) and State v. Pillow, 2d Dist. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Wolfegreen1 sentence2025See State v. Wolfe, 2025-Ohio-866, ¶ 93-97 (2d Dist.) (sustaining trial court’s decision that overruled 9 a motion to suppress challenging the authenticity of videotape evidence because a motion to suppress was not the proper vehicle to challenge the authenticity of the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nieldsgreen2 sentences2020Clark No. 2008-CA-445, 2009-Ohio-2744 , ¶ 11; see also State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 34 , 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001). {¶ 31} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. 2020Clark No. 2008-CA-445, 2009-Ohio-2744 , ¶ 11; see also State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 34 , 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001). {¶ 31} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kimmelman v. Morrison
green
2 sentences2021Strickland at 697 . {¶ 29} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. -14- Montgomery No. 22740, 2009-Ohio-808, ¶ 3 , citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) and State v. Pillow, 2d Dist. 2021Strickland at 697 . {¶ 29} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. -14- Montgomery No. 22740, 2009-Ohio-808, ¶ 3 , citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) and State v. Pillow, 2d Dist. | 7 | 2009–2021 |
State v. Pillow, 07ca095 (11-21-2008)
green
2 sentences2021Greene No. 2007-CA-95, 2008-Ohio-6046, ¶ 59 . 2009Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986), 477 U.S. 365 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 ; State v. Pillow , Greene App. No. 07CA95, 2008-Ohio-6046 . {¶ 4} When a witness who identifies a defendant has been confronted with a live or photographic lineup of suspects, due *Page 3 process requires the court to suppress evidence of the witness's identification of the defendant if the confrontation was unduly suggestive of the defendant's guilt and the witness's identification of the defendant was unreliable under the totality of the circumstances. | 2 | 2009–2021 |
State v. Paskins
green
1 sentence2023Lucas App. No. L-22-1082, 2023-Ohio-103 , quoting State v. Paskins. 2022-Ohio-4024 , --- N.E.3d ---, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.). {¶ 13} “[A] defendant charged with an offense involving the use of force has the burden of producing legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s use of force was in self-defense.” State v. Messenger, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2022-Ohio-4562 , --- N.E.3d ---. ¶ 25. “[I]f the defendant’s evidence and any reasonable inferences about that evidence would allow a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of a self-defense claim when 5. viewed in the light most favorable to the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Messenger
green
2 sentences2023Lucas App. No. L-22-1082, 2023-Ohio-103 , quoting State v. Paskins. 2022-Ohio-4024 , --- N.E.3d ---, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.). {¶ 13} “[A] defendant charged with an offense involving the use of force has the burden of producing legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s use of force was in self-defense.” State v. Messenger, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2022-Ohio-4562 , --- N.E.3d ---. ¶ 25. “[I]f the defendant’s evidence and any reasonable inferences about that evidence would allow a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of a self-defense claim when 5. viewed in the light most favorable to the 2023Lucas App. No. L-22-1082, 2023-Ohio-103 , quoting State v. Paskins. 2022-Ohio-4024 , --- N.E.3d ---, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.). {¶ 13} “[A] defendant charged with an offense involving the use of force has the burden of producing legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s use of force was in self-defense.” State v. Messenger, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2022-Ohio-4562 , --- N.E.3d ---. ¶ 25. “[I]f the defendant’s evidence and any reasonable inferences about that evidence would allow a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of a self-defense claim when 5. viewed in the light most favorable to the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Greer
green
1 sentence2023Lucas App. No. L-22-1082, 2023-Ohio-103 , quoting State v. Paskins. 2022-Ohio-4024 , --- N.E.3d ---, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.). {¶ 13} “[A] defendant charged with an offense involving the use of force has the burden of producing legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s use of force was in self-defense.” State v. Messenger, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2022-Ohio-4562 , --- N.E.3d ---. ¶ 25. “[I]f the defendant’s evidence and any reasonable inferences about that evidence would allow a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of a self-defense claim when 5. viewed in the light most favorable to the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.