Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 Ohio App. 3d 106 - State v. Mitchell

60 Ohio App. 3d 106 - State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
3
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2023

23 state decisions

12019891990200020102020decided

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. Logan · State v. Price · State v. Donald · 51 Ohio App. 2d 105 - State v. Bridgeman · 3 Ohio App. 3d 331 - State v. Sims

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

  1. “Where a defendant files a timely notice of alibi, presents evidence to support the contention, and relies on it as his sole defense, this court has held that a trial court's failure to instruct the jury on alibi violates the mandate of R.C. 2945.11 , whether or not the defendant requests such instruction. So long as the defense is supported by testimony, the court has a duty to give an instruction, and failure to do so is plain error pursuant to Crim. R. 52(B). State v. Mitchell (1989), 60 Ohio App.3d 106 , 108 , 574 N.E.2d 573 . *Page 29 {¶ 106}”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “As the evidence, including that of the defendant's own witnesses, tended to contradict the defendant's alibi, it was not unreasonable for a jury to disbelieve the alibi and find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    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.