Legal Opinion

State v. Van Gundy

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1992No. 91-336PublishedCited by 92 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAbood, J.

Amicus curiae initially contends that the definition of “reasonable doubt” set forth in R.C. 2901.05 unconstitutionally dilutes the requirement that the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In State v. Nabozny (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 195, 8 O.O.3d 181, 375 N.E.2d 784, at paragraph two of the syllabus, this court held:

“The definition of ‘reasonable doubt’ set forth in R.C. 2901.05 correctly conveys the concept of reasonable doubt and, therefore, is not an unconstitutional dilution of the state’s requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

This contention, therefore, is without…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Holland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  3. Francis v. FranklinSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Hopt v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  5. State v. ScottOhio Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by92 opinions

  1. State v. MurphyOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. State v. HancockOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State v. LozaOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State v. YarbroughOhio Supreme Court · 2002

87 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