State v. Hamilton
Citations
- 2017 Ohio 8140
Syllabus
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - DRUGS - AUTOMOBILES - EVIDENCE/WITNESS/TRIAL - CONTINUANCE - JURIES - VOIR DIRE - RESTRAINTS - HEARSAY - TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE - ALLIED OFFENSES - R.C. 2941.25 - SENTENCING: The trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered during the search of an automobile, because defendant was properly detained where a police officer observed a traffic violation, executed a traffic stop, and detained defendant, who was a passenger in the vehicle. The trial court properly overruled defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered during the search of an automobile, because he lacked standing to challenge the search where he did not own the vehicle, had not been driving the vehicle, and had voluntarily exited from the vehicle prior to the search. The trial court properly overruled defendant's motion to dismiss based on the failure to preserve evidence that had been requested where the trial court made the factual determination that the requested video recordings had been corrupted by faulty recording equipment and had never existed in a usable form. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's motion to continue a suppression hearing for the testimony of an absent witness where the trial court determined that the motion to suppress could be overruled on an independent basis not involving the witness's testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's motion for a continuance where the continuance was sought to secure the testimony of a witness, but the movant could not say what the witness would testify to or if the testimony would be different than testimony already provided by other witnesses. Defendant was not prejudiced where he was not present for the voir dire of a juror who had been approached by a third party who had attempted to influence the juror, because counsel was present to protect his rights. Defendant's temporary restraint during his testimon
Judges: Mock
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. ThomasOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-01-18· cited 8×
- State v. DavisOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-11-13· cited 6×
- State v. LasterOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-09-07· cited 6×
- State v. CookOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-09-27· cited 4×
- State v. ToddOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-10-22· cited 3×
- State v. WilsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-06-19· cited 2×
- State v. LaneOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-11-08· cited 2×
- State v. StaffordOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-08-05· cited 1×
- State v. JenkinsOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-09-24
Cites
36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court· 1983-06-08· cited 16,716×
- State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court· 1997-05-14· cited 16,183×
- Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1979-01-15· cited 6,103×
- United States v. CortezSupreme Court· 1981-01-21· cited 5,975×
- Adams v. WilliamsSupreme Court· 1972-06-12· cited 5,118×
- United States v. SokolowSupreme Court· 1989-04-03· cited 4,647×
- Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1968-05-20· cited 3,740×
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court· 1964-06-15· cited 3,675×
- California v. TrombettaSupreme Court· 1984-06-11· cited 3,405×
- Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court· 1989-01-23· cited 3,366×
- Alabama v. WhiteSupreme Court· 1990-06-11· cited 3,282×
- Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court· 1970-04-06· cited 3,248×
- Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1934-01-08· cited 2,822×
- Alderman v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1969-03-24· cited 2,470×
- State v. BurnsideOhio Supreme Court· 2003-10-22· cited 2,261×
- Maryland v. WilsonSupreme Court· 1997-02-19· cited 1,555×
- Prado Navarette v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 2014-04-22· cited 1,110×
- State v. GarnerOhio Supreme Court· 1995-11-22· cited 957×
- State v. FranklinOhio Supreme Court· 1991-11-20· cited 798×
- State v. RogersOhio Supreme Court· 2015-06-24· cited 703×
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.