State v. Gillard
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The state asserts six propositions of law and Gillard’s cross-appeal asserts two propositions of law. For the reasons that follow, we sustain the state’s propositions of law, overrule Gillard’s propositions of law, and reverse the judgment of the court of áppeals.
I
The state’s first proposition of law stems from a dispute over the procedures to be followed under Crim. R. 16(B)(1)(e), which provides as follows:
“* * * Names and addresses of witnesses shall not be subject to disclosure if the prosecuting attorney certifies to the court that to do so may subject the witness to physical or…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- State v. LongOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by117 opinions
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. GarnerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. MurphyOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. LangOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
112 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.