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.
8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goldfuss v. Davidsongreen1 sentence2004See Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , syllabus (plain error may be applied in civil cases involving "exceptional circumstances.") {¶ 96} Evid.R. 807 provides a hearsay exception for out-of-court statements made by a child under the age of 12 when certain procedures are followed. | 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. Long
green
2 sentences2011State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 , paragraph three of the syllabus. 2011State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 , paragraph three of the syllabus. | 2 | 2008–2011 |
State v. Dunn, 2008-Ca-00137 (4-6-2009)
green
1 sentence2012No. 2008-CA-00137, 2009-Ohio-1688 , citing State v. Morales, 10 Dist. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Jenks
yellow
2 sentences2011State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 42} The elements of tampering with evidence are set forth in R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) as follows: “(A) No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of the following: “(1) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation * * *.” {¶ 43} With regard to defendant’s complaint that the State offered two theo 2011State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 42} The elements of tampering with evidence are set forth in R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) as follows: “(A) No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of the following: “(1) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation * * *.” {¶ 43} With regard to defendant’s complaint that the State offered two theo | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Reuschling, 2007-A-0006 (12-14-2007)
green
1 sentence2008No. 2007-A-0006, 2007-Ohio-6726 . *Page 16 {¶ 34} Because we review this argument under the plain error standard, we cannot presume that merely because the language of the waiver is deficient, Urbina did not intend to waive his right to confront the laboratory analyst. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence2007State v. Jells (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 22 , 32 . {¶ 155} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that "[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." As a general rule, however, plain error is to be recognized only where "the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different absent the error." State v. Hill , 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 203 , 2001-Ohio-141 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence2007State v. Jells (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 22 , 32 . {¶ 155} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that "[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." As a general rule, however, plain error is to be recognized only where "the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different absent the error." State v. Hill , 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 203 , 2001-Ohio-141 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Jells
green
1 sentence2007State v. Jells (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 22 , 32 . {¶ 155} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that "[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." As a general rule, however, plain error is to be recognized only where "the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different absent the error." State v. Hill , 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 203 , 2001-Ohio-141 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Wogenstahl
neutral
1 sentence2005Crim.R. 52 provides that "plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that "plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise." State v. Wogenstahl (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 344 , 357 , reconsideration denied (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 1453 . {¶ 14} The United States Supreme Court in Crawford held that out-of-court statements that are "testimonial" in nature are inadmissible unless the declarant is u | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Wogenstahl
green
1 sentence2005Crim.R. 52 provides that "plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that "plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise." State v. Wogenstahl (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 344 , 357 , reconsideration denied (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 1453 . {¶ 14} The United States Supreme Court in Crawford held that out-of-court statements that are "testimonial" in nature are inadmissible unless the declarant is u | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Lundgren
green
2 sentences2000State v. Lundgren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 474 , 487 , 653 N.E.2d 304 . 2000State v. Lundgren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 474 , 487 , 653 N.E.2d 304 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.