Legal Opinion

State v. Mack

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1998No. 96-2250PublishedCited by 137 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

We must determine in this case whether the trial court acted properly in refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of aggravated assault. Because we find that the evidence of serious provocation was not reasonably sufficient as a matter of law to justify such an instruction, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and reinstate appellee’s conviction.

Initially, the state argues that the court of appeals should not have reversed Mack’s conviction, since he failed to preserve the issue and therefore waived his right to appeal. Appellant’s argument rests on…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. DeemOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State v. ShaneOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. WillifordOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State v. BrooksOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. WolonsOhio Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by137 opinions

  1. State v. Wilson, 22581 (2-6-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  3. State v. KnuffOhio Supreme Court · 2024
  4. State v. HarrisOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. State v. KehoeOhio Court of Appeals · 1999

132 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