two prongs test in Ohio

2003The two prongs of the test are (1) the prosecutor must show that the declarant is unavailable to testify; and (2) the statement must bear adequate “indicia of reliability.” Id. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 .

2003The two prongs of the test are (1) the prosecutor must show that the declarant is unavailable to testify; and (2) the statement must bear adequate “indicia of reliability.” Id. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 .

1997The Supreme Court of Ohio in Fisher, supra, 49 Ohio St.3d at 277 , 551 N.E.2d at 1274 , made reference to Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria (Fla.1980), 383 So. 2d 623 , as having ‘* * * embarked on a well-reasoned analysis as to whether that court had developed inconsistent constructions of the basic coverage formula * * *.’ It was noted by the court in Strother, supra, at 625 , that it had, in some decisions, bifurcated the elements of ‘arising out of’ and ‘in the course of’ and in other cases merged them.

1997The Supreme Court of Ohio in Fisher, supra, 49 Ohio St.3d at 277 , 551 N.E.2d at 1274 , made reference to Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria (Fla.1980), 383 So. 2d 623 , as having ‘* * * embarked on a well-reasoned analysis as to whether that court had developed inconsistent constructions of the basic coverage formula * * *.’ It was noted by the court in Strother, supra, at 625 , that it had, in some decisions, bifurcated the elements of ‘arising out of’ and ‘in the course of’ and in other cases merged them.

1997The Supreme Court of Ohio in Fisher, supra, 49 Ohio St.3d at 277 , 551 N.E.2d at 1274 , made reference to Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria (Fla.1980), 383 So. 2d 623 , as having ‘* * * embarked on a well-reasoned analysis as to whether that court had developed inconsistent constructions of the basic coverage formula * * *.’ It was noted by the court in Strother, supra, at 625 , that it had, in some decisions, bifurcated the elements of ‘arising out of’ and ‘in the course of’ and in other cases merged them.

1997The Supreme Court of Ohio in Fisher, supra, 49 Ohio St.3d at 277 , 551 N.E.2d at 1274 , made reference to Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria (Fla.1980), 383 So. 2d 623 , as having ‘* * * embarked on a well-reasoned analysis as to whether that court had developed inconsistent constructions of the basic coverage formula * * *.’ It was noted by the court in Strother, supra, at 625 , that it had, in some decisions, bifurcated the elements of ‘arising out of’ and ‘in the course of’ and in other cases merged them.

2021Instead, the trial court concluded that Parks claims were insufficient to demonstrate the two prongs of the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). {¶21} To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient.

2021Instead, the trial court concluded that Parks claims were insufficient to demonstrate the two prongs of the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). {¶21} To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient.

2002No. 1-02-17, 2002-Ohio-4942 , ¶ 9, citing Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745 , 753 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 .

2002No. 1-02-17, 2002-Ohio-4942 , ¶ 9, citing Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745 , 753 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 .

1990When applying the two prongs of this analysis, it is not always necessary to address whether counsel's conduct was deficient if such conduct insufficiently prejudiced the case State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St. 3d at 143 .

1987"To the contrary, the record indicate[d] that the truck was free from defects at the time it was sold, * * *" Love, supra, at 202 , 27 OBR at 241-242, 500 N.E.2d at 332 , that the truck had been altered by a third party, and that reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion, that being the manufacturer could not be held strictly liable for the plaintiff's injuries.