State v. Washington
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFrench, J.
{¶ 1} In this case, we consider the impact of our syllabus in State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, which instructs courts that a defendant’s conduct “must be considered” when determining whether multiple offenses merge at sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2941.25. We hold that the court of appeals erred by relying on Johnson for the proposition that a court may consider a defendant’s conduct only as it was described by the state’s “theory” at trial.
*428Background
{¶ 2} In 2009, a jury found defendant-appellee, David Washington, guilty of several offenses, including one…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Missouri v. FryeSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by174 opinions
- State v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. WashingtonOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- State v. Bishop (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- State v. Fannon, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Athens County2018
- State v. LeGrantOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
169 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.