8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 1 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. Collinsgreen1 sentence2026See Martin at ¶ 40 (remarks that defendant chose not to test the items for fingerprints and DNA was a proper response to the defense’s assertion that without the DNA or fingerprint evidence, the State failed to prove his guilt); Collins at 527-528 (prosecutor’s comments that defendant offered no evidence that he paid child support directly to mother or that he had no income to pay child support constituted fair comment on the lack evidence offered by defendant to support these theories). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dean (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2019See Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 , 2015-Ohio-4347 , 54 N.E.3d 80, at ¶ 253 . {¶ 382} Seventh, Ford argues that the prosecutor inappropriately argued: “And we are here to honor the law, not great speeches, racist speeches—or speeches about racism, speeches about slavery. * * * I mean, I can’t imagine going back there after hearing that history of slavery in this country and not feeling a little awkward, maybe pandered to.” This rebuttal was a response to defense counsel’s arguments about racism. 2019See Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 , 2015-Ohio-4347 , 54 N.E.3d 80, at ¶ 253 . {¶ 382} Seventh, Ford argues that the prosecutor inappropriately argued: “And we are here to honor the law, not great speeches, racist speeches—or speeches about racism, speeches about slavery. * * * I mean, I can’t imagine going back there after hearing that history of slavery in this country and not feeling a little awkward, maybe pandered to.” This rebuttal was a response to defense counsel’s arguments about racism. | 1 | 1 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen1 sentence2012An abuse of discretion “implies that the [trial] court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murphygreen2 sentences2001See State v. Murphy (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 571-572 , 605 N.E.2d 884, 899-900 ; State v. Williams (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 , 23 OBR 13, 17, 490 N.E.2d 906, 911 . 2001See State v. Murphy (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 571-572 , 605 N.E.2d 884, 899-900 ; State v. Williams (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 , 23 OBR 13, 17, 490 N.E.2d 906, 911 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weatherford v. Bursey
green
2 sentences2017The state asserts on appellate review that it delivered the information on October 15, 2015, four weeks before the trial. {¶19} Prosecutors are prohibited from concealing favorable evidence from the defense, however, “‘[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case.’” State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-5735 , 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 60 , quoting Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). 2017The state asserts on appellate review that it delivered the information on October 15, 2015, four weeks before the trial. {¶19} Prosecutors are prohibited from concealing favorable evidence from the defense, however, “‘[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case.’” State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-5735 , 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 60 , quoting Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2017The state asserts on appellate review that it delivered the information on October 15, 2015, four weeks before the trial. {¶19} Prosecutors are prohibited from concealing favorable evidence from the defense, however, “‘[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case.’” State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-5735 , 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 60 , quoting Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). 2017The state asserts on appellate review that it delivered the information on October 15, 2015, four weeks before the trial. {¶19} Prosecutors are prohibited from concealing favorable evidence from the defense, however, “‘[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case.’” State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-5735 , 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 60 , quoting Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Houston
green
1 sentence2013The trial court found that at the point Officer Bower asked Appellant if he would like to sit in the cruiser, Timberlake had not yet received a response to his inquiry about Houston’s ID. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Castle, Unpublished Decision (4-08-2004)
green
1 sentence2008No. 03CA24, 2004-Ohio-1992 , at ¶ 9 . {¶ 36} The State argues that Sanders was afforded his right of allocution when the trial court asked at sentencing: "Any evidence you wish to offer?" Although the record indicates the court addressed "you" at sentencing, because there was only a response from defense counsel, the record is not clear whether the appellant was given a sufficient opportunity for allocution. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2001See State v. Murphy (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 571-572 , 605 N.E.2d 884, 899-900 ; State v. Williams (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 , 23 OBR 13, 17, 490 N.E.2d 906, 911 . 2001See State v. Murphy (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 571-572 , 605 N.E.2d 884, 899-900 ; State v. Williams (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 , 23 OBR 13, 17, 490 N.E.2d 906, 911 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brown v. Executive 200, Inc.
green
2 sentences1982Although appellants’ reliance is misplaced, in view of the court’s response that the standard was “clear and convincing,” we, nevertheless, find merit in this assignment of error based on the court’s error in holding that the appropriate standard was “clear and convincing.” In Brown v. Executive 200 (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 250 [ 18 O.O.3d 446 ], the Supreme Court sets forth the test to be applied in determining the required burden of proof for the violation of a prohibitory injunction, which may amount to both civil and criminal contempt. 1982Although appellants’ reliance is misplaced, in view of the court’s response that the standard was “clear and convincing,” we, nevertheless, find merit in this assignment of error based on the court’s error in holding that the appropriate standard was “clear and convincing.” In Brown v. Executive 200 (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 250 [ 18 O.O.3d 446 ], the Supreme Court sets forth the test to be applied in determining the required burden of proof for the violation of a prohibitory injunction, which may amount to both civil and criminal contempt. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.