57 Ohio App. 2d 1 - State v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"*** It has further been ruled that a character witness who denies having heard any report of the accused's having done certain things may not be asked to suppose the accused had done those things and relate whether, after the supposition, his opinion of the defendant would be different, for such a question calls for an opinion upon a hypothetical state of facts not in evidence. When such questions are asked, they are an abuse of the limited privilege of cross-examination of character witnesses and are, particularly where an affirmative answer is elicited, held to be reversible error. ***"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Johnson

2. ““We find it conceivable that in many situations a defendant’s presence at such a hearing could result in his giving defense counsel information that could lead to the exclusion of such potentially damaging evidence from consideration by the triers of the fact; thus, his presence does bear a reasonably substantial relation to defend in these instances.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 8 Ohio App. 3d 56 - State v. Woods