Legal Opinion

State v. Greer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 13, 1981No. Nos. 80-658, 80-659 and 80-660PublishedCited by 134 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

I

In holding that the admission of the testimony of the other instances of bribery or payoffs of the defendants Greer and Houston was prejudicial error, the Court of Appeals held that "other acts" testimony, as allowed by R. C. 2945.59, could not be permitted in the instant cause since the evidence of other *142acts of these defendants was not a material issue at trial. The holding of the Court of Appeals, as set forth in the decision of that court, was specifically as follows:

“Defendants Greer and S. Houston were charged with knowingly soliciting or accepting money from Audrey Matz, doing…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
  3. Jencks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Dennis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959

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

3Cited by134 opinions

  1. State v. TreeshOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. HunterOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  3. State v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. LangOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  5. State v. HancockOhio Supreme Court · 2006

129 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