When a defendant has been convicted or acquitted, or has been once in jeopardy upon an indictment or information, the conviction, acquittal, or jeopardy is a bar to another indictment or information for the offense charged in the former indictment or information, or for an attempt to commit the same offense, or for an offense necessarily included therein, of which he might have been convicted under the former indictment or information.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1954–2020 · leading case: State v. Evans, 2009-Ohio-2974, 911 N.E.2d 889.
State v. Evans, 2009-Ohio-2974, 911 N.E.2d 889. “25) or as a lesser included offense (R.C. 2943.09).” Because the grand theft conviction did not require proof of any element not also required to prove the robbery conviction, we held that they were the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy and vacated the defendant’s…”
State v. Weed, 169 N.E.2d 39 (Ohio Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 4דA more serious question is raised by assignments of error numbered 1, 2 and -5, to wit, under the indictment and facts in this case, could each defendant, upon a plea of guilty, be sentenced on each of four counts, or do such sentences constitute multiple-punishment for the same…”
State v. Hague, 573 N.E.2d 1150 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1989). · cites it 4ד09, which reads: *760 “When a defendant has been convicted or acquitted, or has been once in jeopardy upon an indictment or information, the conviction, acquittal, or jeopardy is a bar to another indictment or information for the offense charged in the former indictment or…”
State v. Johnson, 165 N.E.2d 814 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960). “We note at this point that in addition to the constitutional protection, Ohio also has provided by §2943.09 R. C., that: “When a defendant has been convicted or acquitted, or has been once in jeopardy upon an indictment or information, the conviction, acquittal, or jeopardy is a…”
State v. Fletcher, 259 N.E.2d 146 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1970). · cites it 2ד26 Section 2943.09, Revised Code, does not reach the question of successive prosecutions by different sovereignties.”
Murphy v. Coleman, No. 5:16-cv-02315 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2020). · cites it 3דOhio Rev. Code § 2943.09. He was not subject to successive prosecutions or to multiple punishments and therefore his arguments are not persuasive.”
City of Oakwood v. Ramnath, 520 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1987). · cites it 5דRamnath contends that R.C. 2943.09 is dispositive of the question and we are inclined to agree: “When a defendant has been convicted or acquitted, or has been once in jeopardy upon an indictment or information, the conviction, acquittal, or jeopardy is a bar to another…”
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.