State v. McFarland
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 835
Syllabus
Marsy's Law; subpoena; electronic devices; compulsory process; Ohio Const. art. I, § 10a; Ohio Const. art. I, § 10. Affirmed, modified, and remanded. The trial court did not err in denying the victim's motion to quash a subpoena issued by the defendant because the victim's right to refuse discovery requests or depositions is expressly subordinate to the defendant's right to compulsory process arising under Ohio Const. art. I, § 10.
Judges: S. Gallagher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court· 1974-07-24· cited 4,095×
- Weatherford v. BurseySupreme Court· 1977-02-22· cited 1,807×
- Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-09-22· cited 666×
- United States v. HubbellSupreme Court· 2000-06-05· cited 375×
- Arnold v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court· 1993-08-11· cited 279×
- State v. BarkerOhio Supreme Court· 2011-08-24· cited 131×
- State v. Mole (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-07-28· cited 77×
- State ex rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court· 1990-06-20· cited 26×
- State ex rel. Thomas v. McGinty (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-12-01· cited 24×
- Godwin v. Facebook, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2020-10-08· cited 12×
- Parma v. SchoonoverOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-02-06· cited 5×
- State v. CountsOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-10-13· cited 5×
- Palmieri v. PalmieriOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-07-18· cited 4×
- State v. WolfeOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-03-14· cited 4×
- State v. KriwinskyOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-07-15· cited 2×
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.