State v. Holz
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 2711
Syllabus
Because the defendant failed to make an offer of proof when the trial court barred his sole witness from testifying at trial, defendant's claim—that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial—was not preserved for appeal and could not be reviewed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- observing that in the absence of an offer of excluded evidence, error is not preserved for appeal and will be reviewed only for plain error
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Osowik
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court· 1997-05-14· cited 16,183×
- State v. LongOhio Supreme Court· 1978-02-15· cited 3,848×
- City of Lakewood v. PapadelisOhio Supreme Court· 1987-08-05· cited 330×
- State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-04-20· cited 165×
- State v. ChapinOhio Supreme Court· 1981-08-05· cited 98×
- Ross v. St. Elizabeth Health CenterOhio Court of Appeals· 2009-03-26· cited 4×
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.