State v. Zuern
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
We begin our analysis of this appeal by considering the specific issues raised concerning the proceedings below. In his first proposition of law, appellant urges that the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying his request to have the jury view the crime scene, i.e., the maximum security cell. He contends that such a viewing would have aided the trier of fact to better understand the testimony concerning the size of the cell and its relative location. This argument is without foundation in that, accepting appellant’s statements as true, no connection is demonstrated between the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Tibbs v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Harrington v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- McCleskey v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by155 opinions
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. MillsOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. CarterOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. TreeshOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. GarnerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
150 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.