State v. Diallo
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 2434
Syllabus
VEHICULAR ASSAULT — HEEDLESS INDIFFERENCE — RECKLESS — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — MOTION TO DISMISS – DOUBLE JEOPARDY: Defendant's conviction for vehicular assault was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where video footage depicted defendant driving straight ahead for more than 20 seconds and hitting a construction worker, who was wearing a reflective vest and carrying a large \stop\ sign without regard for her safety, thereby exhibiting heedless indifference to the consequences of his action and substantially disregarding the risk that she would be seriously injured. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, where vehicular assault requires proof of serious physical harm and the local traffic ordinance does not.
Judges: Kinsley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court· 1997-05-14· cited 16,183×
- State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court· 1991-07-31· cited 11,342×
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1931-12-11· cited 10,676×
- State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-09-13· cited 457×
- State v. Myers (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2018-05-17· cited 173×
- State v. Mutter (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2017-05-24· cited 50×
- State v. CurryOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-03-31· cited 28×
- State v. NastalOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-03-25· cited 7×
- State v. BradenOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-02-14· cited 5×
- State v. HareOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-06-08· cited 3×
- State v. PeguesOhio Court of Appeals· 2026-06-03· cited 1×
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.