Legal Opinion
State v. Crampton
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 11, 1969No. 68-533PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, C. J.
Defendant’s first contention is that a person accused of murder in the first degree is denied his constitutional right to a fair trial when veniremen are excused for cause from serving as jurors because their opinions preclude them from finding the accused guilty of an offense punishable with death.
Our decision in State v. Pruett (1969), 18 Ohio St. 2d 167, and the reasons stated in the opinions in Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968), 391 U. S. 510, 20 L. Ed. 2d 433, 88 S. Ct. 1770; Boulden v. Holman (1969), U. S. , 22 L. Ed. 2d 433 and State v. Pruett, supra, require us to reject this contention.*
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Witherspoon v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Boulden v. HolmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- In Re AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Petition of Joseph Ernst for a Writ of Habeas CorpusCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
- State v. StatenOhio Supreme Court · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- McGautha v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- State v. EatonOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- State v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Crampton v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. KassowOhio Supreme Court · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.