Legal Opinion

State v. O'Neal

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 2000No. 98-147PublishedCited by 66 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

Appellant presents seventeen propositions of law for our consideration. (See Appendix, infra.) We have considered each of appellant’s propositions of law and have reviewed the death penalty for appropriateness and proportionality. For the reasons that follow, we uphold appellant’s convictions and sentences, including the sentence of death.

I

We have held time and again that this court is not required to address, in detail, each and every contention raised by the parties in a death penalty appeal. We continue to adhere to that position today. We have carefully considered all of the propositions…

2Cases cited55 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Hernandez v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Purkett v. ElemSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. Pulley v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. State v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State v. TibbettsOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. Kirkland (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  4. State v. GroupOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State v. ShortOhio Supreme Court · 2011

61 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