State v. Gardner
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants’ initial proposition of law is
that the operation of Ohio’s rape shield law, specifically E. 0. 2907.02 (D),2 unconstitutionally infringed upon their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation of witnesses and their right to a fair trial as secured by the Due Process Clause. During the trial, the defense attempted to call a witness who would testify that complainant 'Fenrick had solicited him for sex. This wras for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of Fenrick, who, on cross-examination, had denied ever engaging in prostitution. The trial judge refused to allow this evidence to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- People v. McKennaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1978
- State v. HectorOhio Supreme Court · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by97 opinions
- State v. SlagleOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. ClintonOhio Supreme Court · 2017
- State v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. Hartman (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- State v. CraigOhio Supreme Court · 2006
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.