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 1979–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Logangreen2 sentences2012State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 , 397 N.E.2d 1345 (1979) (“the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine * * * sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger, and other times as the doctrine of divisibility of offenses.” {¶11} R.C. 2941.25 provides: (A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or Licking County, Case No. 11-CA-91 5 information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. 2012State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 , 397 N.E.2d 1345 (1979) (“the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine * * * sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger, and other times as the doctrine of divisibility of offenses.” {¶11} R.C. 2941.25 provides: (A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or Licking County, Case No. 11-CA-91 5 information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Bottagreen2 sentences2016It is apparent that the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger [Footnote omitted], and other times as the doctrine of divisibility of offenses [Footnote omitted] which holds that “a major crime often includes as inherent therein the component elements of other crimes and that these component elements, in legal effect, are merged in the major crime.” State v. Botta (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 196, 201 , 271 N.E.2d 776, 780 . 2016It is apparent that the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger [Footnote omitted], and other times as the doctrine of divisibility of offenses [Footnote omitted] which holds that “a major crime often includes as inherent therein the component elements of other crimes and that these component elements, in legal effect, are merged in the major crime.” State v. Botta (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 196, 201 , 271 N.E.2d 776, 780 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Ricegreen1 sentence1982In State v. Rice (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 422, 424 [ 23 O.O.3d 374 ], the court stated that: “Under R.C. 2941.25, if the conduct of the defendant here may be construed to constitute allied offenses of similar import, and the offenses are found not to have been committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the defendant *280 may be convicted of only one of the offenses.” In State v. Logan (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 126, 131 [ 14 O.O.3d 373 ], the court stated: “It is apparent that the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine — sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Maumee v. Geiger
green
2 sentences2010State v. Logan (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 , 14 O.O.3d 373 , 397 N.E.2d 1345 (“the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine * * * sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger, and other times as the doctrine of divisibility of offenses” [footnotes omitted]). 1 {¶ 13} R.C. 2941.25 provides: {¶ 14} “(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. {¶ 15} “(B) Where the defendant’s conduct co 2010State v. Logan (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 , 14 O.O.3d 373 , 397 N.E.2d 1345 (“the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine * * * sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger, and other times as the doctrine of divisibility of offenses” [footnotes omitted]). 1 {¶ 13} R.C. 2941.25 provides: {¶ 14} “(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. {¶ 15} “(B) Where the defendant’s conduct co | 2 | 2010–2011 |
State v. Donald
green
2 sentences1982C. 2941.25, this court stated in Logan, supra, at page 131, that: “It is apparent that the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine — sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger, and other times as the doctrine of divisibility of offenses — which holds that ‘a major crime often includes as inherent therein the component elements of other crimes and that these component elements, in legal effect, are merged in the major crime.’ State v. Botta (1971), 27 Ohio St. 2d 196, 201 . * * *” (Footnotes omitted.) Further, in Logan, supra, we set forth the test for determining whether mul 1982In State v. Rice (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 422, 424 [ 23 O.O.3d 374 ], the court stated that: “Under R.C. 2941.25, if the conduct of the defendant here may be construed to constitute allied offenses of similar import, and the offenses are found not to have been committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the defendant *280 may be convicted of only one of the offenses.” In State v. Logan (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 126, 131 [ 14 O.O.3d 373 ], the court stated: “It is apparent that the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine — sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger, | 2 | 1982–1982 |
City of Newark v. Vazirani
green
2 sentences1993In Newark v. Vazirani (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 81 , 549 N.E.2d 520 , syllabus, the court enunciated a two-tiered test for determining whether two or more crimes are allied offenses of similar import. 1993In Newark v. Vazirani (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 81 , 549 N.E.2d 520 , syllabus, the court enunciated a two-tiered test for determining whether two or more crimes are allied offenses of similar import. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence1982In State v. Rice (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 422, 424 [ 23 O.O.3d 374 ], the court stated that: “Under R.C. 2941.25, if the conduct of the defendant here may be construed to constitute allied offenses of similar import, and the offenses are found not to have been committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the defendant *280 may be convicted of only one of the offenses.” In State v. Logan (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 126, 131 [ 14 O.O.3d 373 ], the court stated: “It is apparent that the statute has attempted to codify the judicial doctrine — sometimes referred to as the doctrine of merger, | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.