State v. McNeill
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.
In accordance with the mandate of R.C. 2929.05(A), we have reviewed each of McNeill’s seventeen propositions of law, independently weighed the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating factors, and evaluated the appro*440priateness and proportionality of the death penalty. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
I
Repeatedly, we have held that R.C. 2929.05 does not require this court to address and discuss, in opinion form, each proposition of law raised in a capital appeal. See, e.g., State v. Mitts (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 223, 226, 690 N.E.2d 522, 526; State…
2Cases cited63 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Taylor v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Duren v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by132 opinions
- State v. MurphyOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. ConwayOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. YarbroughOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. YarbroughOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. TenaceOhio Supreme Court · 2006
127 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.