City of Cleveland v. Egeland
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMarkus, J.
The defendants appeal from their convictions for aggravated disorderly conduct by lying in the street after officers asked them to move. They both state that they were demonstrating against nuclear warfare and argue that (a) the jury lacked sufficient evidence to support its verdicts, (b) the prosecutor made an improper argument during his summation, and (c) the court imposed an unreasonably excessive sentence. Defendant Egeland also complains that the court restricted questions and denied requested jury instructions about nuclear warfare hazards as a justification for his conduct.
We agree…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforoSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Cox v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Edwards v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- State v. EleyOhio Supreme Court · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Demarkus Hodge v. Pat Hurley, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- State v. FlorsOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
- City of Columbus v. JonesOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
- Kettering v. BerryOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
- City of Cleveland v. SundermeierOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.