21 Ohio App. 3d 268 - State v. Crider’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““No person, knowingly and by force or by unlawful threat of harm, shall attempt to influence, intimidate, or hinder a * * * witness in the discharge of his duty.” * * ⅝ * * * In a 1961 bribery case, State v. Lieberman (1961), 114 Ohio App. 339 , 179 N.E.2d 108 [ 18 O.O.2d 25 ], the appellate court approved a jury instruction which defined the word “witness.” The trial court defined a “witness” as a person who “did in fact have factual knowledge which was pertinent or relevant to * * * proceedings, and * * * if * * * [the person] had such knowledge, * * * [the person] was a ‘witness,’ ” even though not subpoenaed to testify. Id. at 342 , 179 N.E.2d 108 . The Supreme Court refused to accept the matter for consideration. State v. Lieberman (1961), 172 Ohio St. 478 , 178 N.E.2d 506 [ 17 O.O.2d 464 ], The Lieberman definition was generally followed by this court in an intimidation case, State v. Hudson (June 30, 1982), Summit App. No. 10491, unreported [ 1982 WL 5074 ]. In Hudson a witness was defined ás “a person with factual knowledge relevant to the issues involved in the proceedings.” An examination of the intimidation statute does not offer an express definition of the word “witness.” However, rules of statutory construction provide that a word is to be read in context and construed according to its common usage. R.C. 1.42. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1961), provides the following definition of the word “witness”: “ ⅜ * * one that is cognizant of”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Peck · State v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 07ca009154 (3-31-2008)

2. “One count of aggravated burglary was based upon the underlying felony of intimidation of a witness, namely, the victim. R.C. 2921.03. Crider argues that at the time of the intimidation there were no criminal proceedings pending and thus the victim was not a “witness.” The state argues that the victim, who was the object of Crider’s original criminal conduct, was intimidated by him when he returned to the victim’s home. At that time, the victim was a witness within the purview of R.C. 2921.03. This court agrees.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State

3. “influence, intimidate, or hinder a * * * witness [Mr. Dominguez][.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 07ca009154 (3-31-2008)