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 2001–2026 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. Taylorgreen2 sentences2026“The amount of care or time that the defendant spends in planning and analyzing the crime are not critical factors in themselves; however, they ‘“must amount to more than momentary deliberation.”’” State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 , 345 (2001), quoting State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15 , 19 (1997), quoting the 1973 Legislative Service Commission comments to R.C. 2903.01. -4- Case No. 9-24-65 {¶8} “There is no bright-line test to distinguish between the presence or absence of prior calculation and design; each case depends upon its own facts.” State v. Ford, 2019-Ohio-4539, ¶ 319 , citing Stat 2024The amount of care or time that the defendant spends in planning and analyzing the crime are not critical factors in themselves; however, they ‘must amount to more than momentary deliberation.’ Id. | 3 | 8 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2020“The amount of care or time that the defendant spends in planning and analyzing the crime are not critical factors in themselves; however, they ‘ “must amount to more than momentary deliberation.” ’ ” State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335, 345 , 744 N.E.2d 1163 (2001), quoting State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 19 , 676 N.E.2d 82 (1997), quoting the 1973 Legislative Service Commission comments to R.C. 2903.01. {¶ 61} Three factors guide our review of Hundley’s claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove prior calculation and design: “(1) Did the accused and victim know each other, an 2020“The amount of care or time that the defendant spends in planning and analyzing the crime are not critical factors in themselves; however, they ‘ “must amount to more than momentary deliberation.” ’ ” State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335, 345 , 744 N.E.2d 1163 (2001), quoting State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 19 , 676 N.E.2d 82 (1997), quoting the 1973 Legislative Service Commission comments to R.C. 2903.01. {¶ 61} Three factors guide our review of Hundley’s claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove prior calculation and design: “(1) Did the accused and victim know each other, an | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2026“The amount of care or time that the defendant spends in planning and analyzing the crime are not critical factors in themselves; however, they ‘“must amount to more than momentary deliberation.”’” State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 , 345 (2001), quoting State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15 , 19 (1997), quoting the 1973 Legislative Service Commission comments to R.C. 2903.01. -4- Case No. 9-24-65 {¶8} “There is no bright-line test to distinguish between the presence or absence of prior calculation and design; each case depends upon its own facts.” State v. Ford, 2019-Ohio-4539, ¶ 319 , citing Stat 2020“The amount of care or time that the defendant spends in planning and analyzing the crime are not critical factors in themselves; however, they ‘ “must amount to more than momentary deliberation.” ’ ” State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335, 345 , 744 N.E.2d 1163 (2001), quoting State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 19 , 676 N.E.2d 82 (1997), quoting the 1973 Legislative Service Commission comments to R.C. 2903.01. {¶ 61} Three factors guide our review of Hundley’s claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove prior calculation and design: “(1) Did the accused and victim know each other, an | 2 | 2020–2026 |
State v. Cotton
green
2 sentences2023“The amount of care or time that the defendant spends in planning and analyzing the crime are not critical factors in themselves; however, they must amount to more than momentary deliberation.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id. 2023Id. {¶ 57} In determining whether there is legally sufficient evidence to prove prior calculation and design, a court considers three factors: (1) whether the accused and the victim knew each other and, if so, whether that relationship was strained; (2) whether the accused gave thought or preparation to choosing the murder weapon or murder site; and (3) whether the act was drawn out or was " 'an almost instantaneous eruption of events.' " Hundley at ¶ 61 , quoting State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 19 (1997). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Walker (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026“The amount of care or time that the defendant spends in planning and analyzing the crime are not critical factors in themselves; however, they ‘“must amount to more than momentary deliberation.”’” State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 , 345 (2001), quoting State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15 , 19 (1997), quoting the 1973 Legislative Service Commission comments to R.C. 2903.01. -4- Case No. 9-24-65 {¶8} “There is no bright-line test to distinguish between the presence or absence of prior calculation and design; each case depends upon its own facts.” State v. Ford, 2019-Ohio-4539, ¶ 319 , citing Stat | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Ford (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026“The amount of care or time that the defendant spends in planning and analyzing the crime are not critical factors in themselves; however, they ‘“must amount to more than momentary deliberation.”’” State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 , 345 (2001), quoting State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15 , 19 (1997), quoting the 1973 Legislative Service Commission comments to R.C. 2903.01. -4- Case No. 9-24-65 {¶8} “There is no bright-line test to distinguish between the presence or absence of prior calculation and design; each case depends upon its own facts.” State v. Ford, 2019-Ohio-4539, ¶ 319 , citing Stat | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Franklin
green
1 sentence2020We have “never set forth a bright-line test for discerning the presence or absence of prior calculation and design but instead undertake[ ] a unique analysis of the facts of each case.” State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2002-Ohio-5304 , 776 N.E.2d 26 , ¶ 56. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Franklin
green
1 sentence2020We have “never set forth a bright-line test for discerning the presence or absence of prior calculation and design but instead undertake[ ] a unique analysis of the facts of each case.” State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2002-Ohio-5304 , 776 N.E.2d 26 , ¶ 56. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.