Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Osie (Slip Opinion)

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 2014No. 2010-1105Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLanzinger, J.

{¶ 273} While I concur that the state proved the felony-murder specifications beyond a reasonable doubt, I would hold that the state did not present sufficient evidence to convict Gregory Osie of the R.C. 2929.04(A)(8) specification.

The R.C. 2929.0Jp(A)(8) Witness-Murder Specification

{¶ 274} The United States Supreme Court has stated that the underlying principle in capital cases is that the death penalty is reserved for a narrow category of crimes and offenders. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 568-569, 125 *182S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005). Ohio’s statute reflects this principle by allowing a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Roper v. SimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. State v. ConwayOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 2014
  4. State ex rel. Steckman v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State v. MaloneOhio Supreme Court · 2009

3 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