Ohio Court of Appeals· 10/22/2018
State v. Todd
Citations
- 2018 Ohio 4252
Syllabus
Defendant-appellant's absence from a portion of voir dire conducted in camera is not plain error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's motion for a new trial.
Judges: Preston
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1967-03-27· cited 23,069×
- State v. LongOhio Supreme Court· 1978-02-15· cited 3,848×
- State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court· 1980-05-07· cited 3,804×
- Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1934-01-08· cited 2,822×
- State v. BarnesOhio Supreme Court· 2002-01-09· cited 2,256×
- State v. SchiebelOhio Supreme Court· 1990-10-26· cited 1,644×
- State v. LandrumOhio Supreme Court· 1990-08-15· cited 737×
- State v. MorelandOhio Supreme Court· 1990-04-04· cited 702×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court· 1983-08-24· cited 530×
- State v. LaMarOhio Supreme Court· 2002-05-15· cited 477×
- State v. BodykeOhio Supreme Court· 2010-06-03· cited 413×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court· 2011-07-13· cited 406×
- State v. WaddellOhio Supreme Court· 1996-03-04· cited 330×
- United States v. BrownSixth Circuit· 1978-02-07· cited 114×
- State v. SamatarOhio Court of Appeals· 2003-03-31· cited 92×
- State v. AbramsOhio Supreme Court· 1974-07-05· cited 89×
- State v. JacksonOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-08-18· cited 29×
- State v. RaberOhio Court of Appeals· 2010-08-30· cited 29×
- In re Bruce S.Ohio Supreme Court· 2012-12-06· cited 28×
- State v. CunninghamOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-05-23· cited 27×
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.