State v. Davis
Citations
- 2021 Ohio 1833
Syllabus
The State presented sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction for one count of littering, and her conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err when it admitted the victims' security camera footage into evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 901(A). Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the security camera footage. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Hall
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court· 1989-05-10· cited 7,124×
- State v. LongOhio Supreme Court· 1978-02-15· cited 3,848×
- State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court· 1985-05-15· cited 1,185×
- State v. PayneOhio Supreme Court· 2007-09-26· cited 801×
- State v. BrownOhio Supreme Court· 1988-08-31· cited 695×
- State v. CookOhio Supreme Court· 1992-12-18· cited 551×
- State v. LangOhio Supreme Court· 2011-08-31· cited 509×
- State v. McKnightOhio Supreme Court· 2005-11-30· cited 390×
- Midland Steel Products Co. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 486Ohio Supreme Court· 1991-07-10· cited 161×
- State v. Pickens (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-12-16· cited 130×
- State v. BentonOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-09-07· cited 38×
- Royse v. City of DaytonOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-07-15· cited 21×
- State v. WileyOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-02-10· cited 19×
- State v. SimmonsOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-04-29· cited 17×
- State v. MaioloOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-11-20· cited 9×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.