State v. Tunstall
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 2376
Syllabus
Appellant was convicted of felony murder and obstructing official business, among other charges. The jury's determination that appellant did not act in self defense was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The obstructing official business conviction included a finding that appellant's conduct had created a risk of physical harm to any person this finding was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Tucker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court· 1997-05-14· cited 16,183×
- State v. MessengerOhio Supreme Court· 2022-12-21· cited 321×
- State v. CarneyOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-04-28· cited 91×
- State v. WinbushOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-02-24· cited 55×
- State v. FarraOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-04-29· cited 39×
- State v. BakerOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-07-18· cited 30×
- State v. HughkeithOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-04-13· cited 25×
- State v. GardnerOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-02-10· cited 18×
- State v. Reyes-FigueroaOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-09-17· cited 15×
- State v. GastonOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-06-06· cited 12×
- State v. AzaliOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-12-21· cited 11×
- State v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-07-28· cited 10×
- State v. CunninghamOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-01-20· cited 7×
- State v. FieldsOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-09-22· cited 5×
- State v. GippOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-12-08· 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.