152 Ohio App. 3d 579 - State v. Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2022
10 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 State v. Thompkins · State v. Long · United States v. Atkinson · State v. Barnes · State v. Lott
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]lthough it is the better practice for a trial court to make its findings for imposing maximum and consecutive sentences on the record without prompting from the [S]tate, such a method of placing the findings on the record is not legally deficient.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(4) * * * that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following: "(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed * * *, or was under post-release control for a prior offense. "* * * "(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person is `not guilty by reason of insanity' relative to a charge of an offense only if the person proves, in the manner specified in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code, that at the time of the commission of the offense, the person did not know, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, the wrongfulness of the person's acts.”
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.