State v. Chinn
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
Appellant presents twenty-five 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 uphold appellant’s convictions and sentences, including the sentence of death.
*554I
We have held, time and again, 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 continue to adhere to that position today. We…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Skipper v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by84 opinions
- Mitchell v. EsparzaSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- State v. IssaOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. HancockOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. PowellOhio Supreme Court · 2012
79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.