State v. Green

Decided December 31, 1996

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1996-12-31

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a deadly weapon capable of expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Obsaint, C-060629 (6-1-2007)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-12-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 190 Ohio App. 3d 35 - State v. Monford (2010), 143 Ohio App. 3d 91 - State v. Jeffers (2001)

60 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Painter, Presiding Judge,

¶1 concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶2 I dissent, only on the issue of the alleged weapon. If the statutory law admitted of the result reached by my colleagues, I would gladly join therein; it does not, so I dissent. Even the state agrees that no Ohio court has gone so far as this court does today in conjuring up a firearm.

¶3 Now we have held that brandishing a paper envelope, together with a threat, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt not only that there was something in the envelope, and that something was a deadly weapon under R.C. 2923.11(A), but also that the deadly weapon was a firearm “capable of expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant,” as required by R.C. 2923.11(B)(1). I recoil from such sophistry.