77 Ohio App. 3d 691 - In Re Lemons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The state bears the burden of establishing the proper chain of custody; however, it is not an absolute duty. State v. Moore (1973), 47 Ohio App.2d 181, 183 , 1 O.O.3d 267, 268 , 353 N.E.2d 866, 870 . In order to meet its burden, the state need only prove that it is ‘reasonably certain that substitutions, alteration or tampering did not occur.’ Id. * * * Moreover, a chain of custody can be established by direct testimony or by inference. State v. Conley (1971), 32 Ohio App.2d 54, 60 , 61 O.O.2d 50, 54 , 288 N.E.2d 296, 300 . The issue of whether there exists a break in the chain of custody is a determination left up to the trier of fact. Columbus v. Marks (1963), 118 Ohio App. 359 , 25 O.O.2d 228 , 194 N.E.2d 791 . Any breaks in the chain of custody go to the weight afforded to the evidence, not to its admissibility. Id."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Woodland, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2005) · 108 Ohio App. 3d 598 - State v. Mays