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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 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. Pinkneygreen2 sentences2024Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to give a jury instruction as to mistake of fact.”), State v. Snowden, 7 Ohio App.3d 358, 363 (10th Dist. 1982.) Further, “[i]t is well-settled that the mistake-of-law defense is not recognized in Ohio.” State v. Pinkney, 36 Ohio St.3d 190, 198 (1988). 2012State v. Pinkney, 36 Ohio St.3d 190, 198 , 522 N.E.2d 555 (1988). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Snowdengreen1 sentence2024Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to give a jury instruction as to mistake of fact.”), State v. Snowden, 7 Ohio App.3d 358, 363 (10th Dist. 1982.) Further, “[i]t is well-settled that the mistake-of-law defense is not recognized in Ohio.” State v. Pinkney, 36 Ohio St.3d 190, 198 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ruel Antonio Wallacegreen1 sentence2019See State v Babcock, 2013-Ohio-2366 , 992 N.E.2d 1215 (holding “that the exclusionary rule operates to bar the admission of evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop based on conduct that a police officer mistakenly believes is a violation of the law” and noting that two other districts in Ohio “have refused to allow a mistake of law exception to the application of the exclusionary rule in situations in which a defendant is stopped for a traffic violation when, in fact, the defendant's conduct was lawful.”).3 Admittedly, Babcock was decided prior to Heien. 2 City of Bowling Green v. Godw | 1 | 1 |
City of Bowling Green v. Godwingreen2 sentences2019See State v Babcock, 2013-Ohio-2366 , 992 N.E.2d 1215 (holding “that the exclusionary rule operates to bar the admission of evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop based on conduct that a police officer mistakenly believes is a violation of the law” and noting that two other districts in Ohio “have refused to allow a mistake of law exception to the application of the exclusionary rule in situations in which a defendant is stopped for a traffic violation when, in fact, the defendant's conduct was lawful.”).3 Admittedly, Babcock was decided prior to Heien. 2 City of Bowling Green v. Godw 2019See State v Babcock, 2013-Ohio-2366 , 992 N.E.2d 1215 (holding “that the exclusionary rule operates to bar the admission of evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop based on conduct that a police officer mistakenly believes is a violation of the law” and noting that two other districts in Ohio “have refused to allow a mistake of law exception to the application of the exclusionary rule in situations in which a defendant is stopped for a traffic violation when, in fact, the defendant's conduct was lawful.”).3 Admittedly, Babcock was decided prior to Heien. 2 City of Bowling Green v. Godw | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences1998State v. Williams (1952), 94 Ohio App. 249 , 51 O.O. 414 , 115 N.E.2d 36 ; State v. Pinkney (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 190, 198 , 522 N.E.2d 555, 561 . 1998State v. Williams (1952), 94 Ohio App. 249 , 51 O.O. 414 , 115 N.E.2d 36 ; State v. Pinkney (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 190, 198 , 522 N.E.2d 555, 561 . | 2 | 1988–1998 |
Heien v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences2019The Iowa Supreme Court has maintained this distinction even after the United States Supreme Court decided in Heien v. North Carolina, [574] U.S. [54], 135 S.Ct. 530 , 539–40, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014), that a reasonable mistake of law could support reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. 2019The Iowa Supreme Court has maintained this distinction even after the United States Supreme Court decided in Heien v. North Carolina, [574] U.S. [54], 135 S.Ct. 530 , 539–40, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014), that a reasonable mistake of law could support reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Coyne
neutral
2 sentences1988State v. Williams (1952), 94 Ohio App. 249 , 51 O.O. 414, 415 , 115 N.E. 2d 36, 39 ; State v. Coyne (1983), 10 Ohio Misc. 2d 9, 10 , 10 OBR 162, 460 N.E. 2d 1171, 1172 . 1988State v. Williams (1952), 94 Ohio App. 249 , 51 O.O. 414, 415 , 115 N.E. 2d 36, 39 ; State v. Coyne (1983), 10 Ohio Misc. 2d 9, 10 , 10 OBR 162, 460 N.E. 2d 1171, 1172 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.