Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2026 5 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. Martin, 07ap-362 (12-31-2007)green2 sentences2026See Martin at ¶ 37 (determining “that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, in part because there was evidence that the gun could not be fired any other way than through application of pressure on the trigger, and it was not more likely than other firearms to discharge unintentionally”). {¶31} This conclusion is further bolstered by evidence of Totty’s prior familiarity with firearms and—as we determined in her second assignment of error—her properly admitted refusal to submit to a GSR test, which a jury could reasonably construe as a consciousness of guilt regarding her han 2026See Martin at ¶ 37 (determining “that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, in part because there was evidence that the gun could not be fired any other way than through application of pressure on the trigger, and it was not more likely than other firearms to discharge unintentionally”). {¶31} This conclusion is further bolstered by evidence of Totty’s prior familiarity with firearms and—as we determined in her second assignment of error—her properly admitted refusal to submit to a GSR test, which a jury could reasonably construe as a consciousness of guilt regarding her han | 1 | 1 |
State v. Howsegreen2 sentences2026See State v. Howse, 2012-Ohio-6106, ¶ 30 (9th Dist.) (concluding that the reckless homicide conviction was based on sufficient evidence based on, in part, the defendant’s awareness “of the risks posed by firearms”) {¶32} Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Totty acted recklessly. 2026See State v. Howse, 2012-Ohio-6106, ¶ 30 (9th Dist.) (concluding that the reckless homicide conviction was based on sufficient evidence based on, in part, the defendant’s awareness “of the risks posed by firearms”) {¶32} Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Totty acted recklessly. | 1 | 1 |
City of Dayton v. Ericksongreen2 sentences2024We do not agree. {¶ 23} “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures.” Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 11 (1996). “ ‘[W]arrantless searches are, per se, unreasonable, unless they fall within one of the established exceptions’ ” to the warrant requirement. 2024We do not agree. {¶ 23} “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures.” Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 11 (1996). “ ‘[W]arrantless searches are, per se, unreasonable, unless they fall within one of the established exceptions’ ” to the warrant requirement. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2024See generally id. 1 One could safely assume that GSR testing on Beidleman’s clothing he wore at the time of his arrest, three weeks after the murder, came back negative for residue. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., State v. Nelson, 2017-Ohio-5568 , 93 N.E.3d 472, ¶ 45 (8th Dist.) (where this court affirmed a defendant’s conviction for having weapons while under a disability where no GSR was found on the defendant, but a witness testified that the defendant pointed a gun at him). 2019See, e.g., State v. Nelson, 2017-Ohio-5568 , 93 N.E.3d 472, ¶ 45 (8th Dist.) (where this court affirmed a defendant’s conviction for having weapons while under a disability where no GSR was found on the defendant, but a witness testified that the defendant pointed a gun at him). | 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. Dunn
green
2 sentences2025State v. Dunn, 2024-Ohio-5742, ¶ 32 . 2025State v. Dunn, 2024-Ohio-5742, ¶ 32 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences2024The technique involved in obtaining a gun residue sample, i.e., the swabbing of hands, cannot be said to be more intrusive than the extraction of blood involved in Schmerber [v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)] or even the scraping of fingernails in Cupp. 2024The technique involved in obtaining a gun residue sample, i.e., the swabbing of hands, cannot be said to be more intrusive than the extraction of blood involved in Schmerber [v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)] or even the scraping of fingernails in Cupp. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Dean (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 , 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 177 . {¶25} Regarding the State’s evidence establishing that Mr. Miller used a gun and shot at A.W. and T.L., the State presented: (1) testimony from A.W., who testified that she saw Mr. Miller with a gun, that Mr. Miller shot her, and that she sustained a bullet wound to her lung; (2) T.L.’s 11 911 call wherein T.L. identified Mr. Miller as the shooter; (3) bodycam video from the officers who responded to Courtland Avenue (i.e., where T.L. and A.W. were still in A.W.’s car almost immediately after the shooting) wherein T.L. identified Mr. 2023State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 , 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 177 . {¶25} Regarding the State’s evidence establishing that Mr. Miller used a gun and shot at A.W. and T.L., the State presented: (1) testimony from A.W., who testified that she saw Mr. Miller with a gun, that Mr. Miller shot her, and that she sustained a bullet wound to her lung; (2) T.L.’s 11 911 call wherein T.L. identified Mr. Miller as the shooter; (3) bodycam video from the officers who responded to Courtland Avenue (i.e., where T.L. and A.W. were still in A.W.’s car almost immediately after the shooting) wherein T.L. identified Mr. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Durham
green
2 sentences2018Assault {¶42} Finally, Curry challenges the convictions for the two misdemeanor assault counts under R.C. 2903.13(B), which states that “no person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to another.” Curry asserts that the evidence is primarily circumstantial. {¶43} Circumstantial “‘evidence and direct evidence are indistinguishable so far as the jury’s fact-finding function is concerned.’” State v. Durham, 2016-Ohio-691 , 60 N.E.3d 552 , ¶ 160 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). {¶44} Once again, based on the GSR evidence and Curry’s prese 2018Assault {¶42} Finally, Curry challenges the convictions for the two misdemeanor assault counts under R.C. 2903.13(B), which states that “no person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to another.” Curry asserts that the evidence is primarily circumstantial. {¶43} Circumstantial “‘evidence and direct evidence are indistinguishable so far as the jury’s fact-finding function is concerned.’” State v. Durham, 2016-Ohio-691 , 60 N.E.3d 552 , ¶ 160 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). {¶44} Once again, based on the GSR evidence and Curry’s prese | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Jenks
red
2 sentences2018Assault {¶42} Finally, Curry challenges the convictions for the two misdemeanor assault counts under R.C. 2903.13(B), which states that “no person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to another.” Curry asserts that the evidence is primarily circumstantial. {¶43} Circumstantial “‘evidence and direct evidence are indistinguishable so far as the jury’s fact-finding function is concerned.’” State v. Durham, 2016-Ohio-691 , 60 N.E.3d 552 , ¶ 160 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). {¶44} Once again, based on the GSR evidence and Curry’s prese 2018Assault {¶42} Finally, Curry challenges the convictions for the two misdemeanor assault counts under R.C. 2903.13(B), which states that “no person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to another.” Curry asserts that the evidence is primarily circumstantial. {¶43} Circumstantial “‘evidence and direct evidence are indistinguishable so far as the jury’s fact-finding function is concerned.’” State v. Durham, 2016-Ohio-691 , 60 N.E.3d 552 , ¶ 160 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). {¶44} Once again, based on the GSR evidence and Curry’s prese | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.