material defense in Ohio

2002In short, nothing in the contents of the statements “could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 . {¶ 29} As a separate Brady claim, LaMar argues that the trial court should have found a Brady violation and granted his motion for a new trial after defense counsel discovered that the prosecution had provided complete inmate statements — the same material the defense had requested at the pretrial hearing in LaMar’s case — in the criminal trials of two other SOCF inm

2002In short, nothing in the contents of the statements “could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 . {¶ 29} As a separate Brady claim, LaMar argues that the trial court should have found a Brady violation and granted his motion for a new trial after defense counsel discovered that the prosecution had provided complete inmate statements — the same material the defense had requested at the pretrial hearing in LaMar’s case — in the criminal trials of two other SOCF inm

2023(Nov. 30, 2020 Tr. at 71.) We find the trial court's ruling reasonable under the facts of the present case. {¶ 60} Moreover, even if Mora's failure to sign the photo array form failed to strictly comply with the requirements of R.C. 2933.83, "[t]he failure to strictly comply with R.C. 2933.83 does not render the pretrial identification procedure per se impermissibly suggestive." Young, 2017-Ohio-9028, at ¶ 35 .

2020The detective’s affidavit for the GPS tracking warrant noted that the confidential 1See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 2 For a thorough recitation of the underlying facts and prior procedural history of this matter, see this court’s opinion in appellant’s direct appeal, State v. Mock, 2018- Ohio-268, 106 N.E.3d 154 (8th Dist.). informant signed a proffer letter and positively identified appellant from a photo lineup.

2020The detective’s affidavit for the GPS tracking warrant noted that the confidential 1See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 2 For a thorough recitation of the underlying facts and prior procedural history of this matter, see this court’s opinion in appellant’s direct appeal, State v. Mock, 2018- Ohio-268, 106 N.E.3d 154 (8th Dist.). informant signed a proffer letter and positively identified appellant from a photo lineup.

2020The detective’s affidavit for the GPS tracking warrant noted that the confidential 1See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 2 For a thorough recitation of the underlying facts and prior procedural history of this matter, see this court’s opinion in appellant’s direct appeal, State v. Mock, 2018- Ohio-268, 106 N.E.3d 154 (8th Dist.). informant signed a proffer letter and positively identified appellant from a photo lineup.

2009State v. Jenks , supra, at 274 .

2005State v. Bidinost, 71 Ohio St.3d 449 , 1994-Ohio-465 .

2005State v. Bidinost, 71 Ohio St.3d 449 , 1994-Ohio-465 .

1988The material clause in the deed imposing restrictions upon appellant’s land reads as follows: “As a part of the consideration supporting this conveyance, the Grantee, its successors and assigns covenant and agree to hold the herein described parcel *562 subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions, limitations and reservations: “a) No trailers or trailer courts shall be placed or established upon said premises or suffered to remain thereon. “b) No road, way or bridge shall be built, established, or suffered to remain, from said premises westerly across the Kirk Ditch, so-called

1988The material clause in the deed imposing restrictions upon appellant’s land reads as follows: “As a part of the consideration supporting this conveyance, the Grantee, its successors and assigns covenant and agree to hold the herein described parcel *562 subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions, limitations and reservations: “a) No trailers or trailer courts shall be placed or established upon said premises or suffered to remain thereon. “b) No road, way or bridge shall be built, established, or suffered to remain, from said premises westerly across the Kirk Ditch, so-called

1985Co. (C.A. 7, 1983), 714 F.2d 673 , certiorari denied (1983), 464 U.S. 1009 , wherein that court held: “* * * [E]ven if the failure to disclose was a material violation of the ethical standards applicable to arbitration proceedings, it does not follow that the arbitration award may be nullified judicially.

1985Co. (C.A. 7, 1983), 714 F.2d 673 , certiorari denied (1983), 464 U.S. 1009 , wherein that court held: “* * * [E]ven if the failure to disclose was a material violation of the ethical standards applicable to arbitration proceedings, it does not follow that the arbitration award may be nullified judicially.

1919We think this material inquiry is answered in Chehak v. Battles, 133 Ia. 107 [ 110 N. W. 330 ; 8 L.

1919We think this material inquiry is answered in Chehak v. Battles, 133 Ia. 107 [ 110 N. W. 330 ; 8 L.