Legal Opinion

State v. Economo

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 1996No. 1995-0053PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 76 Ohio St.3d 56.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. ECONOMO, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Economo,

1996-Ohio-426.] Criminal law—Sexual imposition—Evidence—Corroborating evidence necessary to satisfy R.C. 2907.06(B) need not be independently sufficient to convict the accused and need not go to every essential element of the crime charged—Corroboration requirement of R.C. 2907.06(B) is a threshold inquiry of legal sufficiency to be determined by trial judge. The corroborating evidence necessary to satisfy R.C. 2907.06(B) need not be…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. People v. Rincon-PinedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  3. State v. ChambersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
  4. State v. MarandaOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  5. State v. EconomoOhio Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. GuerraOhio Court of Appeals · 2023
  2. In re M.C.L.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  3. State v. LieuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. State v. RhodesOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. State v. Deluca, 88615 (8-2-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

1 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