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 2 courts 1987–2021 1 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. Steffengreen2 sentences1990See, also, State v. Steffen (1987), 31 Ohio St. 3d 111, 129 , 31 OBR 273, 289, 509 N.E. 2d 383, 399 .” Id. 1990See, also, State v. Steffen (1987), 31 Ohio St. 3d 111, 129 , 31 OBR 273, 289, 509 N.E. 2d 383, 399 .” Id. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Lowegreen2 sentences2017State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 , 2007-Ohio-606 , 861 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 14 (the incest statute is meant to protect children from adults with authority over them); State v. Snuggs, 3d Dist. 2017State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 , 2007-Ohio-606 , 861 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 14 (the incest statute is meant to protect children from adults with authority over them); State v. Snuggs, 3d 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stumpf
green
2 sentences1990We stated in State v. Post, supra, that “* * * Although R.C. 2929.04(B) requires a trial court or three-judge panel to consider the factors enumerated therein, ‘* * * it does not require that court or panel to find that such evidence establishes a mitigating factor or factors.’ (Emphasis added.) State v. Stumpf (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 95, 101 , 512 N.E. 2d 598, 605 . 1990We stated in State v. Post, supra, that “* * * Although R.C. 2929.04(B) requires a trial court or three-judge panel to consider the factors enumerated therein, ‘* * * it does not require that court or panel to find that such evidence establishes a mitigating factor or factors.’ (Emphasis added.) State v. Stumpf (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 95, 101 , 512 N.E. 2d 598, 605 . | 2 | 1987–1990 |
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2021The crux of this argument is that the adult portion of the SYO sentence does not allow the court to consider youth as a mitigating factor, contrary to the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Patrick, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6803 , and therefore, violates due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. {¶20} In Patrick, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that a trial court must consider a juvenile’s youth as a mitigating factor when imposing a life sentence on a juvenile who was convicted as an adult. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Willcutt v. Brown
green
1 sentence1999His claim is supported by the affidavit of Dr. James Eisenberg, a forensic psychologist, in which he stated, "a toxicologist, pharmacologist, and/or alcohol evaluation should have been suggested by [mitigation witness] Dr. Bendo." This Court has stated that, "a postconviction petition does not show ineffective assistance merely because it presents a new expert opinion that is different from the theory used at trial." State v. White (Jun. 16, 1999), Summit App. No. 19040, unreported, at 12, quoting State v. Combs (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 90 , 103 , judgment affirmed (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1480 an | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Combs
green
1 sentence1999His claim is supported by the affidavit of Dr. James Eisenberg, a forensic psychologist, in which he stated, "a toxicologist, pharmacologist, and/or alcohol evaluation should have been suggested by [mitigation witness] Dr. Bendo." This Court has stated that, "a postconviction petition does not show ineffective assistance merely because it presents a new expert opinion that is different from the theory used at trial." State v. White (Jun. 16, 1999), Summit App. No. 19040, unreported, at 12, quoting State v. Combs (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 90 , 103 , judgment affirmed (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1480 an | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. DePew
green
2 sentences1999See R.C. 2929.03(D)(1); DePew, 38 Ohio St.3d at 289 , 528 N.E.2d at 557 . 1999See R.C. 2929.03(D)(1); DePew, 38 Ohio St.3d at 289 , 528 N.E.2d at 557 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Patterson
green
1 sentence1999His claim is supported by the affidavit of Dr. James Eisenberg, a forensic psychologist, in which he stated, "a toxicologist, pharmacologist, and/or alcohol evaluation should have been suggested by [mitigation witness] Dr. Bendo." This Court has stated that, "a postconviction petition does not show ineffective assistance merely because it presents a new expert opinion that is different from the theory used at trial." State v. White (Jun. 16, 1999), Summit App. No. 19040, unreported, at 12, quoting State v. Combs (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 90 , 103 , judgment affirmed (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1480 an | 1 | 1999–1999 |
McBride v. United States
green
1 sentence1999His claim is supported by the affidavit of Dr. James Eisenberg, a forensic psychologist, in which he stated, "a toxicologist, pharmacologist, and/or alcohol evaluation should have been suggested by [mitigation witness] Dr. Bendo." This Court has stated that, "a postconviction petition does not show ineffective assistance merely because it presents a new expert opinion that is different from the theory used at trial." State v. White (Jun. 16, 1999), Summit App. No. 19040, unreported, at 12, quoting State v. Combs (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 90 , 103 , judgment affirmed (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1480 an | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.