Ohio Supreme Court· 6/18/1986

State v. Johnson

Citations

24 Ohio St. 3d 87
494 N.E.2d 1061
24 Ohio B. 282
1986 Ohio LEXIS 653

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

identifying 10 aggravating circumstances but not including heinous circumstances of offense
discussing presentation of mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of a capital trial
“omission of [mitigating] evidence in an appropriate case could be ... the result of a tactical, informed decision by counsel, completely consonant with his duties to represent the accused effectively”
“omission of [mitigating] evidence in an appropriate case could be ... the result of a tactical, informed decision by counsel, completely consonant with his duties to represent the accused effectively”
“omission of [mitigating] evidence in an appropriate case could be . . . the result of a tactical, informed decision by counsel, completely consonant with his duties to represent the accused effectively”
explain ing that statutory aggravating circumstances should be narrowly construed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

76 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.