State v. Holman
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 1793
Syllabus
CRIM.R. 24 — VOIR DIRE — BATSON CHALLENGE — EVID.R. 403 —EVID.R. 1002 — BEST-EVIDENCE RULE — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — SEXUAL IMPOSITION — SEXUAL CONTACT: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a new venire after the State provided a brief description of the allegations during its examination of the venire where the parties are permitted to provide an explanation of the circumstances of the offense to determine if prospective jurors have any bias, the State's explanation of circumstances was limited to uncontested allegations, and nothing in Crim.R. 24(A) limits the parties' ability to conduct voir dire under Crim.R. 24(B). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's challenge to the State's use of a peremptory strike of a juror under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), when the State's race-neutral explanation was that the prospective juror had been prosecuted for a crime several decades ago and the State believed the prospective juror stated during voir dire that he felt unfairly prosecuted at the time because, even though the record suggested that the juror stated he did not feel that he was unfairly prosecuted, defendant argued during his Batson challenge that the State was mistaken as to what the prospective juror stated and the trial court was in the best position to judge the prosecutor's credibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's objection to defendant's questioning of a police officer regarding the officer's knowledge of male victims of sexual abuse or in excluding evidence of defendant's history of being a sexual-assault victim where defendant offered the testimony to show that he could have an erection without experiencing sexual gratification but the sexual-contact element of sexual imposition does not require proof that a person actually experienced sexual gratification and the probative value of the testimony was substantially outweighed
Judges: Bock
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1986-04-30· cited 16,401×
- Hernandez v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1991-05-28· cited 4,168×
- California v. TrombettaSupreme Court· 1984-06-11· cited 3,405×
- Purkett v. ElemSupreme Court· 1995-05-15· cited 3,008×
- Crane v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1986-06-09· cited 2,651×
- Miller-El v. DretkeSupreme Court· 2005-06-13· cited 1,931×
- Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-09-22· cited 666×
- State v. TibbettsOhio Supreme Court· 2001-07-05· cited 477×
- Foster v. ChatmanSupreme Court· 2016-05-23· cited 461×
- State v. TylerOhio Supreme Court· 1990-03-28· cited 376×
- Flowers v. MississippiSupreme Court· 2019-06-21· cited 355×
- In re Z.C.Ohio Supreme Court· 2023-12-27· cited 335×
- Ex Parte TravisSupreme Court of Alabama· 2000-03-31· cited 120×
- State v. HerringOhio Supreme Court· 2002-02-27· cited 85×
- State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-09-23· cited 82×
- State v. OllisonOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-12-20· cited 25×
- State v. TaylorOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-11-21· cited 15×
- State v. JonesOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-01-31· cited 8×
- State v. BiswaOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-09-09· cited 5×
- State v. BurnsOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-04-30· cited 5×
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.