68 Ohio App. 2d 135 - State v. Shaker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If the prosecutor should make an admission of fact which shows that no crime had been committed, or that the accused was not guilty of the crime charged, doubtless the court would be justified in sustaining a motion to discharge the accused. * * * [Citation omitted.] Although there appears to be no decision of this court directly upon this question, that such action of the court would be justified in a proper case may be inferred from the decision of this court in State v. Lowenstein, 109 Ohio St., 393 , 142 N.E., 897 , 35 A.L.R., 361 , wherein it was held that an opening statement by the prosecutor containing facts which would at least constitute prima facie evidence of guilt does not justify the court in taking the case from the jury upon a motion of the accused.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 8 Ohio App. 3d 1 - State v. Scott

2. ““The trial of an issue upon an indictment or information shall proceed before the trial court or jury as follows: “(A) Counsel for the state must first state the case for the prosecution, and may briefly state the evidence by which he expects to sustain it. “(B) The defendant or his counsel must then state his defense, and may briefly state the evidence which he expects to offer in support of it. * * “The court may deviate from the order of proceeding listed in this section.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 8 Ohio App. 3d 1 - State v. Scott

3. “[T]here is ample notice of the charges against a defendant by virtue of the complaint or indictment filed against the defendant by the state. A defendant has significant discovery rights under Crim.R. 16 to enable him to obtain necessary evidence to properly prepare a defense. R.C. 2945.10(A) does not require the state prosecutor to state any evidence by which he expects to sustain his case against a defendant.”

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