Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Kirby, 2023 Ohio 782 (Ohio 2023).
· cites it 40× “The issue in this original action is whether the probate- juvenile division of a common pleas court had jurisdiction to grant an application for immunity filed under R.C. 2945.44 in a criminal case. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the probate-juvenile court patently…”
State v. Frye, 2018 Ohio 894 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 13× “{¶ 91} In his third assignment of error, Frye argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for immunity under R.C. 2945.44 for Patterson and Timothy-witnesses he intended to call as part of his defense.”
State ex rel. Koren v. Grogan, 629 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1994).
· cites it 17× “44 and that such immunity provided that he “shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any criminal penalty in the courts of this state for or on account of any transaction or matter concerning which, in compliance with the order, you give an answer or produce information.”
State v. Wilson, 2022 Ohio 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 8× “Wilson’s due process when it granted Maria Williams immunity under R.C. 2945.44. Sixth Assignment of Error The trial court erred when it admitted an expert witness report into evidence.”
State v. Reiner, 89 Ohio St. 3d 342 (Ohio 2000).
· cites it 12× “The defendant alleges that the grant of transactional immunity pursuant to R.C. 2945.44 was unlawful because Susan Batt did not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination upon which to base the immunity.”
State v. Reiner, 757 N.E.2d 1143 (Ohio 2001).
· cites it 12× “Consequently, the prosecution requested that the court grant Susan Batt transactional immunity pursuant to R.C. 2945.44 and compel her to testify. The court heard arguments from the defense, as well as from counsel for Deborah Reiner and the guardian ad litem, for the Reiners’…”
State v. Adamson, 699 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio 1998).
· cites it 20× “The principal issue before us is whether immunity that has been granted pursuant to R.C. 2945.44 continues when the person receiving immunity refuses to testify at a retrial.”
State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 515 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio 1987).
· cites it 4× “44 provides in relevant part: “(A) In any criminal proceeding in this state * * *, if a witness refuses to answer or produce information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, the court of common pleas of the county in which the proceeding is being held,…”
State ex rel. Leis v. Outcalt, 438 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio 1982).
· cites it 7× “44, which provides in relevant part: “(A) In any criminal proceeding in this state, if a witness refuses to answer or produce information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, the court of common pleas of the county in which the proceeding is being held,…”
Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001).
· cites it 2× “At the State’s request, the trial court granted her transactional immunity from prosecution pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2945.44 (1999). She then testified to the jury that she had refused to testify without a grant of immunity on the advice of counsel, although she had done…”
State v. Adams, 791 N.E.2d 1045 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 16× “She argues that while the trial court desired and intended to grant appellant immunity that was coextensive with her constitutional rights, she could not rely on this grant because Ohio’s immunity statute, R.C. 2945.44, does not permit a judge to actually • grant immunity as…”
State v. Reiner, 2000 Ohio 190 (Ohio 2000).
· cites it 12× “The prosecution requested that the court grant Susan Batt transactional immunity pursuant to R.C. 2945.44 and compel her to testify. The prosecution told the court that it did not presently intend to prosecute Susan Batt for this crime.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.44(A) — 15 cases
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Kirby, 2023 Ohio 782 (Ohio 2023).
“The issue in this original action is whether the probate- juvenile division of a common pleas court had jurisdiction to grant an application for immunity filed under R.C. 2945.44 in a criminal case. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the probate-juvenile court patently…”
State v. Frye, 2018 Ohio 894 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
“{¶ 91} In his third assignment of error, Frye argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for immunity under R.C. 2945.44 for Patterson and Timothy-witnesses he intended to call as part of his defense.”
State v. Wilson, 2022 Ohio 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
“Wilson’s due process when it granted Maria Williams immunity under R.C. 2945.44. Sixth Assignment of Error The trial court erred when it admitted an expert witness report into evidence.”
State v. Adamson, 699 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio 1998).
“The principal issue before us is whether immunity that has been granted pursuant to R.C. 2945.44 continues when the person receiving immunity refuses to testify at a retrial.”
State ex rel. Leis v. Outcalt, 438 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio 1982).
“44, which provides in relevant part: “(A) In any criminal proceeding in this state, if a witness refuses to answer or produce information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, the court of common pleas of the county in which the proceeding is being held,…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.44(A)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Adamson, 699 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio 1998).
“The principal issue before us is whether immunity that has been granted pursuant to R.C. 2945.44 continues when the person receiving immunity refuses to testify at a retrial.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.44(B) — 6 cases
State ex rel. Koren v. Grogan, 629 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1994).
“44 and that such immunity provided that he “shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any criminal penalty in the courts of this state for or on account of any transaction or matter concerning which, in compliance with the order, you give an answer or produce information.”
State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 515 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio 1987).
“44 provides in relevant part: “(A) In any criminal proceeding in this state * * *, if a witness refuses to answer or produce information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, the court of common pleas of the county in which the proceeding is being held,…”
State v. Adamson, 699 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio 1998).
“The principal issue before us is whether immunity that has been granted pursuant to R.C. 2945.44 continues when the person receiving immunity refuses to testify at a retrial.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.44(C) — 5 cases
State v. Adams, 791 N.E.2d 1045 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
“She argues that while the trial court desired and intended to grant appellant immunity that was coextensive with her constitutional rights, she could not rely on this grant because Ohio’s immunity statute, R.C. 2945.44, does not permit a judge to actually • grant immunity as…”
State v. Adamson, 699 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio 1998).
“The principal issue before us is whether immunity that has been granted pursuant to R.C. 2945.44 continues when the person receiving immunity refuses to testify at a retrial.”
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.