State v. Short
Citations
- 2020 Ohio 5034
Syllabus
The trial court had jurisdiction to consider appellant's motion for a new mitigation trial. Ohio's death penalty scheme does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because the jury – not the trial judge – is required to find the defendant guilty of the aggravating circumstance specification necessary for death penalty eligibility. Thus, appellant is not entitled to a new mitigation trial under the authority of Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Tucker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Hurst v. FloridaSupreme Court· 2016-01-12· cited 1,067×
- Eberhart v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2005-10-31· cited 799×
- State v. ShortOhio Supreme Court· 2011-07-28· cited 187×
- State v. Mason (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2018-04-18· cited 63×
- State v. RossOhio Supreme Court· 2010-12-28· cited 18×
- State v. ChinnOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-01-10· 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.