State v. Stojetz
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
Appellant presents nineteen propositions of law for our consideration. (See Appendix, infra.) We have considered each of appellant’s propositions of law and have reviewed the death penalty for appropriateness and proportionality. Upon review, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm appellant’s conviction and the sentence of death.
*455I
We have held on a number of prior occasions that this court is not required to address and discuss, in opinion form, each and every proposition of law raised by the parties in a death penalty appeal. We adhere to that position today as our judgment on that issue…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Witherspoon v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Wainwright v. WittSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- State v. LongOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Adams v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. HaleOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. WereOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. SkatzesOhio Supreme Court · 2004
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.