green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
18.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2023–2025 · 2 courts ·
…to require the state to produce the actual firearm or empirical evidence would frustrate the intent of the general assembly.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brian L. Anderson v. Jay Forshey, Warden, Noble Correctional Institution
to require the state to produce the actual firearm or empirical evidence would frustrate the intent of the general assembly.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Anderson
to require the state to produce the actual firearm or empirical evidence would frustrate the intent of the general assembly.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Brime
“The same is true for a firearm specification: a firearm’s existence may be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances.” Hunt at ¶ 21 , citing State v. Vann, 2009-Ohio-5308 , ¶ 27 (2d Dist.); State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 208-09 (1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Santana
State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 208-209 (1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Scott
See also State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) paragraph one of the syllabus (implicit threats are sufficient to establish the use of a firearm under the statute); State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 208, 21 . 551 N.E.2d 932 (1990) (totality of the circumstances established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a firearm). {¶ 52} Therefore, appellee was required to establish the gun used by appellant was operable.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Taylor
Lorain No. 10CA009765, 2011-Ohio-511 , ¶ 23, quoting State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 208 (1990), quoting State v. Gaines, 46 Ohio St.3d 65 (1989), syllabus.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Staten
Thus, in support of a firearm specification, the state " 'must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was operable or could readily have been rendered operable at the time of the offense.' " State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 208 (1990), quoting State v. Gaines, 46 Ohio St.3d 65 (1989), syllabus.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hector
R.C. 2923.11(B)(1). {¶ 36} Thus, to sustain the firearm specification conviction, the state " 'must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was operable or could readily have been operable at the time of the offense.' " State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 208 (1990), quoting State v. Gaines, 46 Ohio St.3d 65 (1989), syllabus.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Patterson
"Firearm" is defined by statute to mean "any deadly weapon capable of expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant. 'Firearm' No. 15AP-1117 16 includes an unloaded firearm, and any firearm that is inoperable but that can readily be rendered operable." R.C. 2923.11(B)(1). {¶ 49} To sustain the firearm specification conviction, the state " 'must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was operable or could readily have been operable at the time of the offense.' " State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 207 (1990), quoting State v. …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hughes
“Accordingly, the trier of fact must evaluate the evidence of a firearm's operability by examining the totality of the circumstances.” Hayes at ¶ 19, citing State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 208 (1990). {¶22} At trial, the State presented evidence that one of the men involved in the robbery brandished a gun and told Mr. Campbell to “get the F on the floor.” That same man approached Mr. Campbell and hit him in the face with the gun, causing him to fall to the ground.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Witcher
“Accordingly, the trier of fact must evaluate the evidence of a firearm’s operability by examining the totality of the circumstances.” Hayes at ¶ 19, citing State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 208 (1990). 5 {¶13} At trial, Gardner testified regarding his belief that Mr. Witcher possessed an operable firearm: Q.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wright, Unpublished Decision (12-7-2004)
Id. at 208. {¶ 65} The Ohio Supreme Court addressed this subject again in Thompkins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hayes, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2004)
Id. at 209. {¶ 32} The Ohio Supreme Court took up the issue again in Thompkins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Marbury, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2004)
(2×)
Id. at 209.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Marbury, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2004)
(2×)
Id. at 209.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Gooden, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2004)
Hence, it is only reasonable that the state can rely upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances in establishing whether a firearm was used in the commission of a felony." {¶ 30} Id. at 208. 2 {¶ 31} The Ohio Supreme Court refined the manner by which the state may prove a firearm specification in State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , where the court stated as follows: "[A] firearm penalty-enhancement specification can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Kovacic, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2003)
The implication of such words is that the gun is operable and a finder of fact may reasonably conclude that such words tend to prove the gun is indeed operable." Id. at 210 (Moyer, C.J., concurring). {¶ 35} Moreover, both the First and Sixth Appellate Districts have found, in cases involving facts substantially similar to the present ones, that the evidence is sufficient to support the firearm specification.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (5-22-1998)
(2×)
Id. at 207.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Thompkins
(2×)
Thus, it is apparent that the General Assembly intended that the state “can rely upon all of the surrounding facts and circumstances in establishing whether a firearm was used in the commission of a felony.” Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d at 208, 551 N.E.2d at 934.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Sanders
See State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 206 , 551 N.E.2d 932 (1990), syllabus.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Sanders
See State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 206 , 551 N.E.2d 932 (1990), syllabus.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Keith
See State v. Smith, 121 Ohio St.3d 409 , 2009-Ohio-787 , 905 N.E.2d 151, ¶ 14 , quoting State v. Lytle, 49 Ohio St.3d 154, 157 , 551 N.E.2d 950 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hill
See State v. Smith, 121 Ohio St.3d 409 , 2009-Ohio-787 , 905 N.E.2d 151, ¶ 15 , citing State v. Lytle, 49 Ohio St.3d 154, 157 , 551 N.E.2d 950 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Tyler
See State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990) (noting that it is not necessary to admit the firearm used during a crime into evidence in order to establish a firearm specification.) {¶41} With respect to operability, the trier-of-fact heard Mr. Masahu’s testimony that he was very scared and afraid that appellant would shoot him.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Glover, 88317 (5-3-2007)
In determining whether an individual was in possession of a firearm and whether the firearm was operable or capable of being readily rendered operable at the time of the offense, the trier of fact may consider all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the crime, which include any implicit threat made by the individual in control of the firearm." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus; accord State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , ("The State must present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a firearm was operable at the time of the offense before a defendant can receive an enhance…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (1-25-2007)
In determining whether an individual was in possession of a firearm and whether the firearm was operable or capable of being readily rendered operable at the time of the offense, the trier of fact may consider all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the crime, which include any implicit threat made by the individual in control of the firearm." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus; accord State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 ("The state must present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a firearm was operable at the time of the offense before a defendant can receive an enhanced …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rankin, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2005)
In determining whether an individual was in possession of a firearm and whether the firearm was operable or capable of being readily rendered operable at the time of the offense, the trier of fact may consider all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the crime, which include any implicit threat made by the individual in control of the firearm." Id. at paragraph 1 of the syllabus; accord State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 ("The state must present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a firearm was operable at the time of the offense before a defendant can receive an enhanced pe…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Elersic, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2004)
See State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , syllabus; R.C. 2923.11 (B)(2). {¶ 67} Also, Tenny stated that he was a truck driver and was in Texas when the burglary occurred.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Reid, Unpublished Decision (8-1-2003)
See State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 209 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Axson, Unpublished Decision (5-1-2003)
See State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 551 N.E.2d 932 , syllabus." State v. Paul (Feb. 14, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 79596, 2002-Ohio-591 , 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 551 at 37. {¶ 117} In the present case the victim had ample opportunity to observe the firearm in question as appellant brandished the weapon, struck the victim with it at least twice, and repeatedly threatened to kill her.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Haskins, Unpublished Decision (1-10-2003)
See State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 208 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Paul, Unpublished Decision (2-14-2002)
See State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , syllabus.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (12-27-2000)
See State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 208 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Galloway, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2000)
See State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Thompson
See State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 551 N.E.2d 932 , syllabus; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Carney
See State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 551 N.E.2d 932 ; State v. Gaines (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 65 , 545 N.E.2d 68 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Taylor
See, also, State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 551 N.E. 932 . {¶25}.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Backie
See also, State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 551 N.E. 932 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Davis, 2007-Ca-00104 (5-16-2008)
See also State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 206 , 551 N.E. 932 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Foy, 2006-Ca-00269 (12-10-2007)
See also State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 551 N.E. 932 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. King, Unpublished Decision (11-19-2004)
See also State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 551 N.E. 932 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. King, Unpublished Decision (11-19-2004)
See also State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 551 N.E. 932 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hampton, Unpublished Decision (4-5-2002)
Painter, P.J., Hildebrandt and Gorman, JJ . 1 The trial court did not impose a sentence on the one-year firearm specification in accordance with R.C. 2929.14 (D)(1)(b), which prevents multiple sentences for firearm specifications related to the same felony. 2 See State v. Wills (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 320 , 324 , 697 N.E.2d 1072 , 1075 ; State v. Hairston (June 11, 1999), Montgomery App. No. 17218, unreported. 3 See Simmons v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 377 , 384 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 971 ; Wills, supra, at 324 , 697 N.E.2d at 1075 . 4 See State v. Jells (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 22 , 27 , 559 N.E.…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Dunn, Unpublished Decision (12-10-2001)
See also State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Surette
See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St. 3d 206, 208 , 551 N.E.2d 932, 935 (1990); Commonwealth v. Layton, 452 Pa. 495, 498 , 307 A.2d 843, 844 (1973).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Evans
See, e.g., State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206 , 551 N.E.2d 932 ; State v. Gaines (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 65 , 545 N.E.2d 68 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ross
v.
Sam W. Emerson Company
v.
Sam W. Emerson Company
No. 89-1146.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Mar 7, 1990.
Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., and Patrick J. Perotti, for appellants., Thomas J. Keenan, for appellee Sam W. Emerson Company., Stephen C. Merriam, for appellees Perkins & Will, Inc. and Perkins & Will Partnership., Terrance P. Gravens, for Lakewood Board of Education.
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ohio Court of Appeals (1) · S.D. Ohio (1)
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on authority of Sedar v. Knowlton Constr. Co. (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 193, 551 N.E. 2d 938.
Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., dissent.