State v. Davie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 152 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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Davie first mentions comments in which he claims that the prosecutor aligned himself with “truth and justice.” However, Davie failed to object and therefore waived all but plain error. [State v.] Slagle, supra, [(1992)] 65 Ohio St.3d [597] at 604, 605 N.E.2d [916] at 925. The comments about truth and the justice system were largely innocuous. While the penalty phase comments may have been a bit embellished, they were not outcome-determinative or unduly prejudicial. With respect to the second group of comments, Davie claims that the prosecutor focused repeatedly on the horror of the crime rather than the evidence. Davie asserts that the prosecutor inflamed the jury by using gruesome photographs to direct attention to the brutality of the crimes. Once again, Davie failed to object to comments he complains of now. While a conviction based solely on inflamed passions, rather than proof of guilt, requires reversal, State v. Williams (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 , 23 OBR 13, 17, 490 N.E.2d 906, 911 , it is clear that even absent these remarks, the jury would have found Davie guilty. See [State v.] Beuke, supra [(1988)], 38 Ohio St.3d [29] at 33, 526 N.E.2d [274] at 280. Moreover, the prosecutor’s comments were fair and based on properly admitted evidence. See State v. Gumm (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 413, 420 , 653 N.E.2d 253, 262 . In the third group, Davie contends that the prosecutor denigrated both defendant and defense counsel. However, Davie objected to only one comment cited: “The”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davie v. Mitchell · State v. Klapka, Unpublished Decision (6-4-2004)

2. “Contrary to Davie’s arguments, he did not unequivocally assert his constitutional rights. Instead, he waived his right to remain silent during both interviews with Vingle and Sines, despite his failure to initial the waiver-of-rights portion of the form. This situation is similar to that in State v. Scott (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 155 , 15 0.0.3d 182, 400 N.E.2d 375 , which followed the decision in North Carolina v. Butler (1979), 441 U.S. 369 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 . In Butler, the Supreme Court noted that “in at least some cases waiver can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated.” Id. at 373 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 . In Scott, the accused acknowledged that he understood his Miranda rights, but refused to sign a waiver form. Nevertheless, he agreed to answer questions and never requested counsel. The Scott court upheld the admissibility of the accused’s statements and held, “[T]he question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in Miranda * * Scott at paragraph one of the syllabus. The similar facts of this case demonstrate that Davie waived his Miranda rights even though he failed to initial the waiver part of the form. When Davie indicated in his interview with Blevins and Hill that he no longer wished to talk, his requests were scrupulously honored by the officers. However, in cutting off the earlier interviews, Davie did not preclude a later interrogation by other”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davie v. Mitchell · Davie v. Mitchell

3. “[a] party may not predicate error on the exclusion of evidence during the examination in chief unless two conditions are met: (1) the exclusion of such evidence must affect a substantial right of the party and (2) the substance of the excluded evidence was made known to the court by proffer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Maggard v. Zervos, Unpublished Decision (12-5-2003) · Melcher v. Ryan, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2006)