105 Ohio App. 3d 713 - State v. Napier’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2025
22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · State v. Bradley · Smith v. Phillips · Lockhart v. Fretwell · State v. Long
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“2. SELF-DEFENSE. The defendant claims to have acted in self-defense. To establish a claim of self-defense, the defendant must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that {¶ 57} "(A) he/she was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to ( describe the event in which death or injury occurred ); and {¶ 58} "(B) he/she had reasonable grounds to believe and an honest belief, even if mistaken, that he/she was in (imminent) (immediate) danger of death or great bodily harm, and that his/her only reasonable means of (retreat) (escape) (withdrawal) from such danger was by the use of deadly force; and {¶ 59} "(C) he/she had not violated any duty to (retreat) (escape) (withdraw) to avoid the danger.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'the product of a committee of the Ohio Judicial Conference which suggests model instructions, but which have no force or effect as a rule of law. They are merely the suggestions of one or more trial or appellate judges as to what those judges feel is an appropriate instruction.' " Id. at 720-721 , 664 N.E.2d 1330 , quoting State v. Mitchell , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 88AP-695, 1989 WL 47083 (May 2, 1989) ; see State v. Burchfield 66 Ohio St.3d 261 , 263, 611 N.E.2d 819 (1993) (recognizing that OJI should not be "blindly applied”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mincey“A verdict cannot be said as a matter of law to be manifestly against the weight or sufficiency of the evidence where substantial evidence is offered by the state in support of all of the elements of the charged offense, and if such evidence was of sufficient probative value to sustain a conviction, the reviewing court will not reverse on the sufficiency or weight of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.