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 1979–2024 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. Crossgreen2 sentences2024State v. Longstreth, 2011-Ohio-1825, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). {¶ 50} “One of the essential features of a necessity or duress defense is the sense of present, imminent, immediate and impending death, or serious bodily injury.” State v. Cross, 58 Ohio St.2d 482, 487 (1979). 1998One of the essential features of a necessity or duress defense is the “sense of present, imminent, immediate and impending death, or serious bodily injury.” State v. Cross (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 482, 487 , 12 O.O.3d 396, 399 , 391 N.E.2d 319, 323 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Longstrethgreen1 sentence2024State v. Longstreth, 2011-Ohio-1825, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). {¶ 50} “One of the essential features of a necessity or duress defense is the sense of present, imminent, immediate and impending death, or serious bodily injury.” State v. Cross, 58 Ohio St.2d 482, 487 (1979). | 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. Robinson
green
2 sentences2016“One of the essential features of a necessity or duress defense is the sense of present, imminent, immediate and impending death, or serious bodily injury.” State v. Cross, 58 Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0062 11 Ohio St.2d 478 , 487-488, 391 N.E.2d 317 (1979), citations omitted. 2000In regard to the crime with which appellant was charged, the Ohio Supreme Court stated in State v. Cross (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 478 , 487-488 : "One of the essential features of a necessity or duress defense is the sense of present, imminent, immediate and impending death, or serious bodily injury. | 2 | 2000–2016 |
State v. Dapice
green
2 sentences2016“In order for duress to be a defense, the force which is claimed to have compelled criminal conduct against the will of the actor must be immediate and continuous during all the time the act is being committed.” State v. Dapice, 57 Ohio App.3d 99 , 106-07 566 N.E.2d 1261 (9th Dist.1989). 2016“In order for duress to be a defense, the force which is claimed to have compelled criminal conduct against the will of the actor must be immediate and continuous during all the time the act is being committed.” State v. Dapice, 57 Ohio App.3d 99 , 106-07 566 N.E.2d 1261 (9th Dist.1989). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Milam
green
1 sentence1979See State v. Sappienza (1911), 84 Ohio St. 63 ; State v. Milam (1959), 108 Ohio App. 254 ; State v. Procter, supra, at page 158. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.