State v. Thomas
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 20
Syllabus
Per Mayle, J., trial court did not err by admitting 911 calls. Statements in the calls were made to get help during an ongoing emergency, so they were nontestimonial and their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Appellant's conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court's inclusion of all possible terms of postrelease control in sentencing entry did not reflect notice that it gave at sentencing hearing, which can be corrected with nunc pro tunc entry.
Judges: Mayle
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2006-06-19· cited 4,179×
- State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-09-13· cited 457×
- State v. QuallsOhio Supreme Court· 2012-03-20· cited 244×
- State v. JonesOhio Supreme Court· 2012-12-06· cited 209×
- State v. Bates (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2022-02-22· cited 88×
- State v. RobersonOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-06-16· cited 29×
- City of Toledo v. SailesOhio Court of Appeals· 2008-12-05· cited 16×
- Toledo v. ManningOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-08-23· cited 16×
- State v. CostillaOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-08-23· cited 13×
- State v. StevensonOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-12-29· cited 9×
- State v. WhitneyOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-10-31· cited 5×
- State v. ShermanOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-11-08· cited 3×
- State v. HopkinsOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-02-11· cited 2×
- State v. McMillonOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-11-25· cited 1×
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.