Notes of Decisions
Cited in
361
cases (
38 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case:
State v. Chappell, 2010 Ohio 5991 (Ohio 2010).
State v. Chappell, 2010 Ohio 5991 (Ohio 2010).
· cites it 34× “146, 150 Ohio Laws, Part V, 7787-7788 (modifying division (A) of R.C. 2901.04 by adding the phrase “or (D)” to the phrase “Except as otherwise provided in division (C) of this section” and enacting new division (D)).”
State v. Gonzales (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 777 (Ohio 2017).
· cites it 6× “An offender who possesses five grams of cocaine should receive the same penalty as the offender who has five grams of cocaine and ten grams of filler material.”
State v. White, 2012 Ohio 2583 (Ohio 2012).
· cites it 8× “Even if there were an ambiguity, meaning two reasonable ways of reading the statute, R.C. 2901.04 provides that we must read the language of the relevant statute not in favor of the government, but in favor of the accused.”
State v. Joseph, 2010 Ohio 954 (Ohio 2010).
· cites it 4× “{¶ 30} Furthermore, R.C. 2901.04(A) requires that statutes defining offenses or penalties be strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the defendant.”
State v. Pribble (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4808 (Ohio 2019).
· cites it 14× “14(A)(3)(b) are in conflict, and applying the rule of lenity—codified in R.C. 2901.04(A) (“sections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused”)—determined that R.”
State v. Sowell (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8025 (Ohio 2016).
· cites it 3× “” See also R.C. 2901.04(B). {¶ 98} We conclude that the term “signed,” as used in Crim.”
State v. Osie (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 2966 (Ohio 2014).
· cites it 4× “” Because the term “criminal action or proceeding” was undefined in the statute, we interpreted the term to mean “a formal process involving a court.”
Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983).
· cites it 2× “If, as Duling establishes, the Constitution prohibits a State from defining a crime (such as murder of a police officer) and then leaving the decision whether to impose the death sentence to the unchecked discretion of the jury, it must also prohibit a State from defining a…”
State v. Whitfield, 2010 Ohio 2 (Ohio 2010).
· cites it 2× “The trial court determined that a plea of guilty was sufficient to satisfy the prior-conviction element. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a judgment entry of conviction was necessary to constitute a “conviction.”
State v. Stevens, 2014 Ohio 1932 (Ohio 2014).
· cites it 8× “{¶ 12} We are guided by the rules of statutory interpretation as codified in the rule of lenity, R.C. 2901.04(A). There, the legislature has made it clear that “sections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and…”
State v. Roberts (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 2998 (Ohio 2017).
· cites it 3× “{¶ 41} Roberts contends that we should take “guidance” from R.C. 2901.04(A), the rule of lenity. But the rule of lenity is not relevant here.”
State v. Harp, 2016 Ohio 4921 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “041(C)(1) was to "impose the maximum mandatory sentence statutorily allowable on those such offenders when the offenses was a felony of the third degree[.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.04(A) — 279 cases
State v. Chappell, 2010 Ohio 5991 (Ohio 2010).
“146, 150 Ohio Laws, Part V, 7787-7788 (modifying division (A) of R.C. 2901.04 by adding the phrase “or (D)” to the phrase “Except as otherwise provided in division (C) of this section” and enacting new division (D)).”
State v. Gonzales (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 777 (Ohio 2017).
“An offender who possesses five grams of cocaine should receive the same penalty as the offender who has five grams of cocaine and ten grams of filler material.”
State v. Pribble (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4808 (Ohio 2019).
“14(A)(3)(b) are in conflict, and applying the rule of lenity—codified in R.C. 2901.04(A) (“sections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused”)—determined that R.”
State v. Whitfield, 2010 Ohio 2 (Ohio 2010).
“The trial court determined that a plea of guilty was sufficient to satisfy the prior-conviction element. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a judgment entry of conviction was necessary to constitute a “conviction.”
State v. Stevens, 2014 Ohio 1932 (Ohio 2014).
“{¶ 12} We are guided by the rules of statutory interpretation as codified in the rule of lenity, R.C. 2901.04(A). There, the legislature has made it clear that “sections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.04(A)(14) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.04(A)(4) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.04(A)(5)(a) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.04(B) — 19 cases
State v. Joseph, 2010 Ohio 954 (Ohio 2010).
“{¶ 30} Furthermore, R.C. 2901.04(A) requires that statutes defining offenses or penalties be strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the defendant.”
State v. Osie (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 2966 (Ohio 2014).
“” Because the term “criminal action or proceeding” was undefined in the statute, we interpreted the term to mean “a formal process involving a court.”
State v. White, 2012 Ohio 2583 (Ohio 2012).
“Even if there were an ambiguity, meaning two reasonable ways of reading the statute, R.C. 2901.04 provides that we must read the language of the relevant statute not in favor of the government, but in favor of the accused.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.04(C) — 4 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.04(D) — 3 cases
State v. Chappell, 2010 Ohio 5991 (Ohio 2010).
“146, 150 Ohio Laws, Part V, 7787-7788 (modifying division (A) of R.C. 2901.04 by adding the phrase “or (D)” to the phrase “Except as otherwise provided in division (C) of this section” and enacting new division (D)).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.04(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.