160 Ohio App. 3d 468 - State v. Wilcox’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
December 2015
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin · State v. Dehass · State v. Lozier
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] finding by the jury that the victim was a peace officer simply enhances the degree of the offense and potential penalty.' Thus, proof of knowledge of the victim's status is not required under these circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]here is no indication whatsoever that the General Assembly intended to impose anything other than strict liability for the peace officer penalty enhancement contained in [former] R.C. 29013.13(C)(3).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here, we are dealing with [a] pair of discrete clauses separated by `or' [in R.C. 2925.03 (C)(5)(b)]. * * * Standing alone, `in the vicinity of a school or in the vicinity of a juvenile' does not indicate any required degree of mental culpability. However, each clause * * * is separately defined in the chapter's definitional section. `In the vicinity of a juvenile,' as defined in R.C. 2925.01 (BB), employs strict liability terms[.] * * * By contrast, the definition of `in the vicinity of a school,'contained in R.C. 2925.01 (P), lacks the express strict liability language of R.C. 2925.01 (BB). * * * We find that the language employed by the General Assembly in the R.C. 2925.01 (P) and 2925.01 (BB) definitions establishes differing levels of culpability for offenses committed `in the vicinity of a juvenile' and `in the vicinity of a school,' plainly indicating that the General Assembly's purpose was to impose strict liability for acts committed `in the vicinity of a juvenile' but not for acts committed `in the vicinity of a school.'”
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.