Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Ohio App. 3d 97

472 N.E.2d 747

State v. Coker

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 1, 1984

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1984-03-01

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-03-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably 41 Ohio App. 3d 101 - State v. Almalik (1987), 61 Ohio App. 3d 37 - State v. Hart (1988)

35 state decisions

16019841990200020102020decided

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 →

Mahoney, J.,

¶1 concurring. I have great difficulty in believing that an object may be concealed and in plain view at the same time. I can readily believe, however, that a concealed object can come into plain view by a change of position of a person or another object. Conversely, the positioning of a body or other object may be used to conceal an object from the view of a person who would be in a position to see it if it were not otherwise concealed. Here the butt of the shotgun came into view when the defendant exited the car.

¶2 Additionally, I would like to point out that to “knowingly have, acquire, carry or use a sawed-off shotgun” is contraband per se by virtue of R.C. 2923.17, and a felony of the fourth degree.

/15/ohioapp3d/97 · .json · Public domain