Legal Opinion

State v. Howard

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1978No. 78-468PublishedCited by 62 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPotter, J.

The appellant has filed two propositions of law. They are as follows:

1. “A defense alibi witness not a party to a criminal proceeding, may be cross-examined for impeachment purposes regarding pre-trial silence to determine if, under the circumstances, that silence was inconsistent with the witness’ testimony at trial.”

2. “The provisions of Criminal Rule 16 (B) (1) (e) providing for discovery by the defendant of the names of witnesses whom the prosecuting attorney intends to call at trial, does r.sic] not include the names of rebuttal witnesses whose testimony becomes relevant for impeachment…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Grunewald v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957

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

3Cited by62 opinions

  1. State v. DarmondOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  2. State v. DunlapOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State v. WilesOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Charles L. Lorraine v. Ralph Coyle, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
  5. City of Lakewood v. PapadelisOhio Supreme Court · 1987

57 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