State v. Stephens
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
The principal error assigned arises out of statements made by the prosecutor in his final argument to the jury, which statements made direct reference to defendant’s silence at the time of his arrest. This was done for the apparent purpose of implying defendant’s guilty knowledge that the prescription was forged. Such statements appear in the bill of exceptions, as follows:
“Mr. Mayar [prosecutor]: * # * Why did he not tell the police at the shopping center, ‘Hey—’
“Mr. Willis [defense counsel]: Objection to that type of argument, your Honor.
“The Court: Overruled.
“Mr. Mayar: ‘Hey, look, this…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- State v. ThayerOhio Supreme Court · 1931
- United States v. William Rensler NolanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by147 opinions
- State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. LottOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. PhillipsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
142 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.