Legal Opinion

State v. Craven

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1973No. 72-837PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Two cases upon all fours with the facts of this case require its reversal.

*22In the first of these, State v. Doll (1970), 24 Ohio St. 2d 130, the inflammatory effect that results from the introduction of evidence tending to show the commission of another offense by the defendant was recognized as generally so prejudicial as to justify a reversal under the facts of that case. The prejudice here is much more obvious than the prejudice in State v. Doll, and its lack of probative value on any material issue before the court is even more apparent. Standing alone, this error would require retrial of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Marshall v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. State v. DollOhio Supreme Court · 1970

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. CoxOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. State v. KiralyOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. State v. BaileyHawaii Supreme Court · 2012
  4. State v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State v. Dute, Unpublished Decision (5-30-2003)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2003

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API