Legal Opinion

In re Watson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1989No. Nos. 88-1470 and 88-1476PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

One of the issues presented is whether the appellants voluntarily waived their Miranda rights in the absence of an interested adult or parent. Also, we are asked to determine whether the trial court properly denied appellants’ motions for separate trials. For the reasons which follow, we answer both queries in the affirmative.

Appellants assert in their first proposition of law that under the totality of the circumstances they failed to appreciate the nature and significance of their constitutional rights as enunciated in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436. Therefore, they urge, their…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. State v. DehassOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Richardson v. MarshSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. In re C.S.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. State v. Barker (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  3. State v. TibbsOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. State v. EvansOhio Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. In Re FortneyOhio Court of Appeals · 2005

52 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