8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re D.D., 22740 (2-20-2009)green2 sentences2025Therefore, “[w]here the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” (Citations omitted.) In re D.D., 2009-Ohio-808, ¶ 3 (2d Dist.). {¶ 28} We find that a motion to suppress the evidence from Minter’s cell phone based on an alleged violation of Evid.R. 901(A) would not have been successful because a motion to suppress is not the proper vehicle to challenge the authenticity of the evidence. 2021Strickland at 697 . {¶ 29} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. -14- Montgomery No. 22740, 2009-Ohio-808, ¶ 3 , citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) and State v. Pillow, 2d Dist. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Wolfegreen1 sentence2025See State v. Wolfe, 2025-Ohio-866, ¶ 93-97 (2d Dist.) (sustaining trial court’s decision that overruled 9 a motion to suppress challenging the authenticity of videotape evidence because a motion to suppress was not the proper vehicle to challenge the authenticity of the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nieldsgreen2 sentences2020Clark No. 2008-CA-445, 2009-Ohio-2744 , ¶ 11; see also State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 34 , 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001). {¶ 31} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. 2020Clark No. 2008-CA-445, 2009-Ohio-2744 , ¶ 11; see also State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 34 , 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001). {¶ 31} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kimmelman v. Morrison
green
2 sentences2021Strickland at 697 . {¶ 29} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. -14- Montgomery No. 22740, 2009-Ohio-808, ¶ 3 , citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) and State v. Pillow, 2d Dist. 2021Strickland at 697 . {¶ 29} “Where the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant making that claim must prove that the basis of the suggested suppression claim is meritorious.” In re D.D., 2d Dist. -14- Montgomery No. 22740, 2009-Ohio-808, ¶ 3 , citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) and State v. Pillow, 2d Dist. | 7 | 2009–2021 |
State v. Pillow, 07ca095 (11-21-2008)
green
2 sentences2021Greene No. 2007-CA-95, 2008-Ohio-6046, ¶ 59 . 2009Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986), 477 U.S. 365 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 ; State v. Pillow , Greene App. No. 07CA95, 2008-Ohio-6046 . {¶ 4} When a witness who identifies a defendant has been confronted with a live or photographic lineup of suspects, due *Page 3 process requires the court to suppress evidence of the witness's identification of the defendant if the confrontation was unduly suggestive of the defendant's guilt and the witness's identification of the defendant was unreliable under the totality of the circumstances. | 2 | 2009–2021 |