8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2019 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. Kiddergreen2 sentences2016See Kidder at 283 (“Any language in Rohdes which is contrary to this two-step analysis is hereby disapproved.”); Deanda at ¶ 15, 18 (explaining that “in the aftermath of Rohdes” “it is essential to divorce the facts of a particular case from the statutory-elements analysis” because “the specific facts of a particular case are still irrelevant to the first step of the lesser-included-offense analysis”). 1990R. 31(C), a defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense when the trial court determines that: "(1) * * * the offense on which the instruction is requested is necessarily lesser than and included within the charged offense, under the statutory elements test announced in State v. Kidder (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 279 , 513 N.E. 2d 311 ; and (2) after examining the facts of the case, ascertains that the jury could reasonably conclude that the evidence supports a conviction for the lesser offense and not the greater." (Citations omitted.) State v. Johnson (1988), 36 Ohio St. 3 | 1 | 3 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Smith, 117 Ohio St.3d 447 , 2008- Ohio-1260, paragraph one of the syllabus, modifying Deem (holding that when a statute sets forth mutually exclusive ways of committing the greater offense, a court is required to apply the second part of the statutory elements test separately to each alternate method of committing the greater offense). 2013The second step now requires that “the greater offense as statutorily defined cannot be committed without the lesser offense as statutorily defined also being committed.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 14} Finally, although we have not made any further alterations to the general statutory-elements test, before Evans we did create an additional, separate rule to apply in cases when the statute for the greater offense sets forth multiple alternative methods of committing the offense, in State v. Smith, 117 Ohio St.3d 447 , 2008-Ohio-1260 , 884 N.E.2d 595 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hlinovskygreen1 sentence2019No. 09 BE 19, 2011-Ohio-6421, ¶ 94 (noting that because "it is possible for an impaired passenger to commit OVI but not commit a physical control violation," the offense of physical control "seems to conflict with the second prong" of the statutory elements test). | 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. Johnson
green
2 sentences2008State v. Johnson (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 224 , 226 . {¶ 23} It is undisputed that gross sexual imposition is a lesser included offense of rape. 1990R. 31(C), a defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense when the trial court determines that: "(1) * * * the offense on which the instruction is requested is necessarily lesser than and included within the charged offense, under the statutory elements test announced in State v. Kidder (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 279 , 513 N.E. 2d 311 ; and (2) after examining the facts of the case, ascertains that the jury could reasonably conclude that the evidence supports a conviction for the lesser offense and not the greater." (Citations omitted.) State v. Johnson (1988), 36 Ohio St. 3 | 2 | 1990–2008 |
City of Shaker Heights v. Mosely
green
1 sentence2019In the second tier, a court considers the evidence in a particular case and determines whether " ' "a jury could reasonably find the defendant not guilty of the charged offense, but could convict the defendant of the lesser included offense." ' " Deanda at ¶ 6 , quoting Evans at ¶ 13 , quoting Shaker Hts. v. Mosely, 113 Ohio St.3d 329 , 2007-Ohio-2072 , ¶ 11. {¶ 20} Under Evans, we begin by comparing the statutory elements of the offenses in question. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Deanda
green
2 sentences2016In fact, the Ohio Supreme Court has 7. explained, “[i]t is essential to divorce the facts of a particular case from the statutory- elements analysis in order to preserve the defendant’s right to notice of the charges against him.” State v. Deanda, 136 Ohio St.3d 18 , 2013-Ohio-1722 , 989 N.E.2d 986, ¶ 15 . {¶ 14} The aggravated menacing statute provides that “No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person * * *.” R.C. 2903.21(A). 2016In fact, the Ohio Supreme Court has 7. explained, “[i]t is essential to divorce the facts of a particular case from the statutory- elements analysis in order to preserve the defendant’s right to notice of the charges against him.” State v. Deanda, 136 Ohio St.3d 18 , 2013-Ohio-1722 , 989 N.E.2d 986, ¶ 15 . {¶ 14} The aggravated menacing statute provides that “No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person * * *.” R.C. 2903.21(A). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Loudermill
green
2 sentences1988Id. at 280 , 513 N.E. 2d at 314 ; State v. Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 382 , 18 O.O. 3d 528, 415 N.E. 2d 303 ; State v. Loudermill (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 79 , 31 O.O. 2d 60, 206 N.E. 2d 198 . 1988Id. at 280 , 513 N.E. 2d at 314 ; State v. Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 382 , 18 O.O. 3d 528, 415 N.E. 2d 303 ; State v. Loudermill (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 79 , 31 O.O. 2d 60, 206 N.E. 2d 198 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ohio v. Wilkins
green
2 sentences1988Id. at 280 , 513 N.E. 2d at 314 ; State v. Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 382 , 18 O.O. 3d 528, 415 N.E. 2d 303 ; State v. Loudermill (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 79 , 31 O.O. 2d 60, 206 N.E. 2d 198 . 1988Id. at 280 , 513 N.E. 2d at 314 ; State v. Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 382 , 18 O.O. 3d 528, 415 N.E. 2d 303 ; State v. Loudermill (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 79 , 31 O.O. 2d 60, 206 N.E. 2d 198 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Rohdes
green
2 sentences1987I The main issue presented in this appeal is whether our per curiam decision in State v. Rohdes (1986), 23 Ohio St. 3d 225 , 23 OBR 382, 492 N.E. 2d 430 , in any way altered the statutory-elements test for determining lesser included offenses first announced in State v. Kuchmak (1953), 159 Ohio St. 363 , 50 O.O. 327 , 112 N.E. 2d 371 . 1987I The main issue presented in this appeal is whether our per curiam decision in State v. Rohdes (1986), 23 Ohio St. 3d 225 , 23 OBR 382, 492 N.E. 2d 430 , in any way altered the statutory-elements test for determining lesser included offenses first announced in State v. Kuchmak (1953), 159 Ohio St. 363 , 50 O.O. 327 , 112 N.E. 2d 371 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.
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.