15 Ohio App. 2d 115 - State v. Perod’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment, information, or complaint, or by such joinder for trial together of indictments, informations or complaints, the court shall order an election or separate trial of counts, grant a severance of defendants, or provide such other relief as justice requires.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 127 Ohio App. 3d 511 - State v. Thompson · 65 Ohio App. 3d 104 - State v. Robles

2. “`Absent some abuse of discretion, to be demonstrated by a clear showing of prejudice and the consequent denial of a fair trial, the [severance] determination is not subject to reversal.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. White · State v. Maske, Unpublished Decision (10-27-2003)

3. “* * * An intention of the movant to have his codefendant testify has never been considered ground for severance. This is especially true where, as here, any prejudice resulting from the joint trial is merely speculative. [Defendant] has neither shown nor asserted that (1) Smith's version of the facts would have any exculpatory effect, or that (2) Smith would more likely testify were he tried separately. We do not conjecture abuses of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Henderson, 88185 (5-17-2007)