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 2 courts 1925–2025 4 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. Kilbygreen1 sentence2023Evans at ¶ 13 . {¶ 17} An instruction on a lesser included offense is only warranted "[i]f the trier of fact could reasonably find against the state and for the accused upon one or more of the elements of the crime charged and for the state on the remaining elements, which by themselves would sustain a conviction on a lesser-included offense[.]" State v. Kilby, 50 Ohio St.2d 21, 24-25 (1977). | 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. Evans
green
2 sentences2025Id. b. 2022Id. {¶ 13} The test for determining if an offense is a lesser included offense of another crime is met when (1) one offense carries a greater penalty than the other, (2) some element of the greater offense is not required to prove commission of the lesser offense, and (3) the greater offense as statutorily defined cannot be committed without the lesser offense as statutorily defined also being committed. | 4 | 2018–2025 |
State v. Villafranco
green
1 sentence2023"If that inquiry is answered affirmatively, then the court must proceed to determine whether the evidence in the case supports an instruction on the lesser included offense." Id. {¶98} "The test for determining if an offense is a lesser included offense of another crime is met when (1) one offense carries a greater penalty than the other, (2) some element of the greater offense is not required to prove commission of the lesser offense, and (3) the greater offense as statutorily defined cannot be committed without the lesser offense as statutorily defined also being committed." State v. Villafr | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hines
green
1 sentence2023"If that inquiry is answered affirmatively, then the court must proceed to determine whether the evidence in the case supports an instruction on the lesser included offense." Id. {¶98} "The test for determining if an offense is a lesser included offense of another crime is met when (1) one offense carries a greater penalty than the other, (2) some element of the greater offense is not required to prove commission of the lesser offense, and (3) the greater offense as statutorily defined cannot be committed without the lesser offense as statutorily defined also being committed." State v. Villafr | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hale
neutral
1 sentence2023"Thus, the three-prong test includes a 'greater penalty' prong, an 'element' prong, and a 'concurrent commission' prong." State v. Hale, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-04-024, 2019-Ohio-1398, ¶ 11 . {¶99} "The test for determining if an offense is a lesser included offense of another does not involve a consideration of the facts of the offense." Hines at ¶ 27. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
The Cayuga
green
1 sentence2012The case supports a rule that loss-of-use damages cannot be “measured by expenses that were never incurred, but that might have been incurred and charged to the [defendant] if the necessities of the business had been something other than what they were.” Id. at 173 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pearce v. Atwood
green
1 sentence1925Our Supreme Court has this tO' say about the matter: “In the case of George A. Pearson v. John Atwood, found in 13 Mass., 324 , the interest of judges is discussed by Chief Justice Parker. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.