State v. Lane
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
I
Celebrezze, J.
Appellant presents 17 propositions of law to support various claims of error in the trial court. Appellant argues first that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to refuse to allow defense counsel to examine veniremen regarding their views on capital punishment. The court prohibited such questioning on voir dire because it felt that “the charge will be that the jury shall not take into consideration any question of punishment,” in apparent reference to R. C. 2929.03(B). Appellant’s argument is, essentially, that by restricting voir dire examination on the question of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Witherspoon v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- State v. BaylessOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- State v. WoodardsOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- State v. SageOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. WillifordOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- O'Brien v. AngleyOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. WadeOhio Supreme Court · 1978
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.