5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 62 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Schaim.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Schaim Anchor | green | “joinder is liberally permitted to conserve judicial resources, reduce the chance of incongruous results in successive trials, and diminish inconvenience to the witnesses.” | 29 |
| 2 | State v. Lott | green | “are of the same or similar character, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.” | 13 |
| 3 | State v. Echols | green | “ohio appellate courts routinely find no prejudicial joinder where the evidence is presented in an orderly fashion as to the separate offenses or victims without significant overlap or conflation of proof.” | 11 |
| 4 | State v. Echols | green | “the very essence of the rule is that the evidence be such that the jury is unlikely to be confused by it or misuse it.” | 5 |
| 5 | State v. Belle | green | “so clearly separate and distinct as to prevent the jury from considering evidence of some crimes as corroborative of the other.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.