State v. Wogenstahl
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
Appellant advances thirty-three propositions of law for our consideration. (See Appendix, infra.) We have carefully considered each of appellant’s propositions of law and have reviewed the death sentence for appropriateness and proportionality. Upon review, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and uphold the sentence of death.
I
We have repeatedly held 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. See, e.g., State v. Scudder (1994), 71 Ohio…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- State v. DehassOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- Kirby v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by168 opinions
- State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. LaMarOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. DennisOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. LangOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. HancockOhio Supreme Court · 2006
163 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.