Legal Opinion

State v. Loudermilk

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided August 30, 2017No. C–160487PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Miller, Judge.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Michael Loudermilk was charged under R.C. 2907.09(A)(1) with public indecency involving a minor. We hold: (1) "physical proximity" as used in R.C. 2907.09(A)(1) means the victim is near enough to observe the offender's private parts; (2) a criminal defendant is not required to disclose evidence used only for the purpose of impeaching a witness; and (3) intermediate appellate courts have jurisdiction to review a claim of judicial bias that is alleged to result in the violation of a defendant's due process rights.

{¶ 2} Loudermilk, shirtless and in blue…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. MartinOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. State v. DehassOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  5. State v. BarnesOhio Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. King v. DivokyOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
  2. Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. BermanOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  3. In re C.S.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023
  4. State v. GreenwayOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. State v. CarterOhio Court of Appeals · 2019

18 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