7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sheldongreen1 sentence2025Sheldon at ¶ 70 (taking into consideration whether appellant’s trial counsel was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the accomplice on credibility issues); Sillett at ¶ 21 . {¶34} Based on our review of the trial transcript, we are not convinced the trial’s outcome would have been different if the trial court had given the accomplice testimony instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodson, Unpublished Decision (10-28-2004)green1 sentence2017Franklin No. 03AP-736, 2004-Ohio-5713, ¶ 17 , citing State v. Christian, Jefferson App. No. 96-JE-42 (Jan. 13, 2000) (“R.C. 2923.03[D] expressly permits substantial compliance with the accomplice testimony instruction. | 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. Lloyd
green
1 sentence2022Licking No. 2020 CA 00074, 2021-Ohio-2420, ¶ 42 , citing State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 251 , 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990). {¶33} Appellant did not request the accomplice-testimony instruction, and in the context of the entire trial, it would have been illogical for appellant to do so. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Williford
green
2 sentences2022Licking No. 2020 CA 00074, 2021-Ohio-2420, ¶ 42 , citing State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 251 , 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990). {¶33} Appellant did not request the accomplice-testimony instruction, and in the context of the entire trial, it would have been illogical for appellant to do so. 2022Licking No. 2020 CA 00074, 2021-Ohio-2420, ¶ 42 , citing State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 251 , 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990). {¶33} Appellant did not request the accomplice-testimony instruction, and in the context of the entire trial, it would have been illogical for appellant to do so. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Waddell
green
2 sentences2022State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163, 166 , 661 N.E.2d 1043 (1996). {¶36} In the instant case, appellant does not explain why the outcome of the trial would have been different if the accomplice-testimony instruction would had been given. 2022State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163, 166 , 661 N.E.2d 1043 (1996). {¶36} In the instant case, appellant does not explain why the outcome of the trial would have been different if the accomplice-testimony instruction would had been given. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence2019No. 12AP-1003, 2013-Ohio-4798 , this court stated: "We have previously considered R.C. 2923.03(D) and observed that ' "R.C. 2923.03(D) explicitly permits substantial compliance with the accomplice testimony instruction." ' " Id. at ¶ 42, quoting State v. Sutton, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2013Reiterating the First Appellate District, “[w]e emphasize that judges should not meddle with the instructions written in any statute, because a few more words of difference could well result in a reversal * * *.” State v. Williams, 117 Ohio App.3d 488 , 495 690 N.E.2d 1297 (1st Dist.1996). {¶91} Gibson also summarily states that the court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that prior convictions of the witness could be used to evaluate credibility, which compounded the problem with the accomplice testimony instruction. 2013Reiterating the First Appellate District, “[w]e emphasize that judges should not meddle with the instructions written in any statute, because a few more words of difference could well result in a reversal * * *.” State v. Williams, 117 Ohio App.3d 488 , 495 690 N.E.2d 1297 (1st Dist.1996). {¶91} Gibson also summarily states that the court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that prior convictions of the witness could be used to evaluate credibility, which compounded the problem with the accomplice testimony instruction. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Fitzgerald, Unpublished Decision (11-19-2004)
green
1 sentence2007Accordingly, we find no prejudice to appellant by the trial court's inclusion of the above-noted language to the accomplice credibility instruction. {¶ 61} Moreover, we emphasize that "R.C. 2923.03 (D) explicitly permits substantial compliance with the accomplice testimony instruction." State v. Fitzgerald , Portage App. No. 2003-L-084, 2004-Ohio-6173 , at ¶ 31 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Myers
green
1 sentence2003The courts strictly enforced the requirement of additional testimony beyond that of the accomplice: "In this day of plea bargaining and immunized testimony, and under such a statute, it is vitally important that one implicating an accomplice must do something more than point a finger." State v. Myers (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 74 , 75 . {¶ 31} This caution applied to the weight given accomplice testimony at trial continues to be reflected in judicial interpretation of current R.C. 2923.03 (D) and the accomplice testimony instruction: "The statutory directive is not optional. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.