State v. Comen’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
731 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 735 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Smith (1997), 127 Ohio App. 3d 328 - State v. Long (1998)
731 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 Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · State v. Bobo · State v. Williams · Ohio v. Freeman
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 735 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fully and completely give the jury all instructions which are relevant and necessary for the jury to weigh the evidence and discharge its duty as the fact finder.”
62 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Crim.R. 30(A) clearly requires that ‘ * * * the court shall instruct the jury after the arguments are completed * * *.’ The language in the rule is mandatory and there is good reason for the mandate. Jurors, being laypersons selected from the citizens of a particular district, are better able to grasp the importance of instructions after they have heard all the evidence. "Likewise, Crim.R. 30(B) plays an important part in the trial process. Preliminary instructions prepare the jury for trial providing orientation so the jury is properly informed as to its duties and responsibilities. Cautionary instructions are often utilized in instructing the jury to consider only certain evidence for a specific purpose, or to inform the jury not to be influenced by extraneous matters. "If the preliminary or cautionary instructions include matters of law vital to the rights of a defendant, the trial court is not excused from including or repeating all such instructions after the arguments are completed. Repeating instructions means fully instructing the jury on the law applicable to the case and not providing them simply with a cursory reminder of what was earlier provided in either the preliminary or cautionary instructions. Regardless of the length of trial, the court cannot assume the jury recalls or remembers the prior instructions.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ppellant's failure to raise this issue in the trial court constitutes a waiver of the error claimed”
5 later decisions 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.