Legal Opinion
State v. Smith
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided July 3, 1986No. CA-2345PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPutman, P. J.
There are five errors assigned in the appeal from a sentence entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas upon a jury verdict of guilty of “rape,” former R.C. 2907.02(A)(l)(see 139 Ohio Laws, Part I, 523, 538-539, and 139 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2285, 2298-2299).
They read:
Assignment of Error No. I
“The trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony of the alleged victim’s sexual intercourse with two other individuals within 24 hours of the alleged rape where such evidence involved the origin of semen and its probative value outweighed any inflammatory or prejudicial nature pursuant to…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Jordan v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- State v. EdwardsOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- State v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- People v. McKennaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1978
- State v. GardnerOhio Supreme Court · 1979
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. RichcreekOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- State v. HumphriesOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- State v. TebelmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- State v. ParksOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
- State v. WilsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.