136 Ohio App. 3d 801 - State v. Benton’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably 152 Ohio App. 3d 495 - State v. Benson (2003), 150 Ohio App. 3d 5 - State v. Stallings (2002)
104 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 California v. Trombetta · Arizona v. Youngblood · State v. Engle · Midland Steel Products Co. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 486 · 36 Ohio App. 3d 169 - City of Columbus v. Forest
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“where a defendant moves to have evidence preserved and that evidence is nonetheless destroyed by the state in accordance with its normal procedures,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““We also note that appellant specifically requested discovery of the tape, and the state did not in good faith respond to that request. Applying Forest , we therefore hold that the state has the burden of showing that the tape was not exculpatory. The state has not met this burden. Given the record in this case, it is equally possible that the tape would have been exculpatory as inculpatory. We also hold that the evidence is unique and not obtainable by other means. Because appellant testified that he disputes much of the testimony that the officer gave at the suppression hearing, the tape would have provided the only possible objective evidence of the events as they happened on the night that appellant was stopped. Accordingly, we hold that appellant’s due process rights were violated when the state destroyed the evidence that appellant specifically requested.” Id. at 806, 737 N.E.2d 1046 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.