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 1990–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Purkett v. Elemgreen2 sentences2006The latter violates the principle that the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” (Emphasis sic.) Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 . {¶ 52} This second- and third-step analysis may work neatly when the race-neutral explanation offered is one that hinges almost entirely on the credibility or genuine concerns of the prosecutor when they arise from the juror’s responses, demeanor, or appearance. 2006The latter violates the principle that the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” (Emphasis sic.) Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 . {¶ 52} This second- and third-step analysis may work neatly when the race-neutral explanation offered is one that hinges almost entirely on the credibility or genuine concerns of the prosecutor when they arise from the juror’s responses, demeanor, or appearance. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2016The Supreme Court found this violates the requirement of specific and articulable belief an individual is armed and dangerous first set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 Sup.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1969). {¶23} The Lozada court held it is unreasonable for an officer to search a driver for weapons before placing him or her in a patrol car if the sole reason for placing the driver in the patrol car during the investigation is for the convenience of the officer. 2016The Supreme Court found this violates the requirement of specific and articulable belief an individual is armed and dangerous first set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 Sup.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1969). {¶23} The Lozada court held it is unreasonable for an officer to search a driver for weapons before placing him or her in a patrol car if the sole reason for placing the driver in the patrol car during the investigation is for the convenience of the officer. | 4 | 2003–2016 |
Griffin v. United States
green
1 sentence2016Gardner holds that while Crim.R. 31(A) does not require jury unanimity as to the specific alternative means supporting conviction, there must be sufficient evidence to support each charged alternative means upon which the jury was instructed, so that "a rational trier of fact could have found each means of committing the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at ¶ 49. {¶ 18} Plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, responds that a looser rule stated in Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991), requires only that one of the instructed alternative grounds be supported by sufficient evidence, | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Gardner
green
1 sentence2016No. 14AP-1032 7 Appellant asserts that this violates the rule in State v. Gardner, 118 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008- Ohio-2787, ¶ 49, governing jury unanimity in alternative means cases. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Mitchell, 2006 Ca 53 (7-13-2007)
green
1 sentence2008In so holding, we stated: `The appellate jurisdiction of this court permits us to review "judgments or final orders of court of record inferior to the courts of appeals within the district" as well as "orders or actions of administrative officers or agencies." Section 3 (B)( 2 ), Article IV , Ohio Constitution. *Page 5 Manifestly, decisions of The Supreme Court of Ohio are outside those classifications.'" State v. Mitchell , Clark App. No. 2006-CA-53, 2007-Ohio-3590 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Burkhart, 06ca18 (6-29-2007)
green
1 sentence2008Lastly, Montgomery asserts that the sentence imposed by the trial court violates the rule of lenity as codified in R.C. § 2901.04 (A). {¶ 11} "However, this court recently determined in State v. Burkhart , Champaign App. No. 2006-CA-18, 2007-Ohio-3436 , that a claim that a decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio is unconstitutional is not cognizable in this court. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Belcher
green
1 sentence2006State v. Hernandez (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 577 , 583 , certiorari denied, 506 U.S. 898 , citing Hernandez, 500 U.S. 532 , supra. "To overturn the trial court's finding that there was no discriminatory intent, this court must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed." State v. Belcher (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 24 , 30 . {¶ 27} In the instant case, the trial court participated in the following exchange with the prosecutor (Christopher Anderson), and defense counsel (Ron Wingate), as it considered the Batson challenge: {¶ 28} "MR. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Hernandez
green
1 sentence2006State v. Hernandez (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 577 , 583 , certiorari denied, 506 U.S. 898 , citing Hernandez, 500 U.S. 532 , supra. "To overturn the trial court's finding that there was no discriminatory intent, this court must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed." State v. Belcher (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 24 , 30 . {¶ 27} In the instant case, the trial court participated in the following exchange with the prosecutor (Christopher Anderson), and defense counsel (Ron Wingate), as it considered the Batson challenge: {¶ 28} "MR. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Rice v. United States
green
1 sentence2006State v. Hernandez (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 577 , 583 , certiorari denied, 506 U.S. 898 , citing Hernandez, 500 U.S. 532 , supra. "To overturn the trial court's finding that there was no discriminatory intent, this court must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed." State v. Belcher (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 24 , 30 . {¶ 27} In the instant case, the trial court participated in the following exchange with the prosecutor (Christopher Anderson), and defense counsel (Ron Wingate), as it considered the Batson challenge: {¶ 28} "MR. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence1990This violates the test set forth in State v. Thomas, supra. Shaw objected to the giving of this instruction. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.
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.