State v. Dixon

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Dixon

1995 Ohio 178, 71 Ohio St. 3d 608

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 14, 1995

Docket1994-0220

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1995 Ohio 178 (State v. Dixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dixon, 1995 Ohio 178, 71 Ohio St. 3d 608 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 71 Ohio St.3d 608.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. DIXON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Dixon, 1995-Ohio-178.] Criminal law—Firearm offenses—R.C. 2929.71(A)—State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that firearm was operable for imposition of additional three years of actual incarceration for possession of firearm at time of offense—Proof beyond a reasonable doubt can be established by testimony of lay witnesses who were in a position to observe the instrument and circumstances surrounding the crime. (No. 94-220—Submitted February 7, 1995—Decided March 15, 1995.) CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Greene County, No. 93 CA 18. __________________ William F. Schenck, Greene County Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert K. Hendrix, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Martin, McCarty, Richman & Wright Co., L.P.A., and Gary E. Wright, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to the certified issue only, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated on the authority of State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 551 N.E.2d 932. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 71 Ohio St.3d 608.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. DIXON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Dixon, 1995-Ohio-178.] Criminal law—Firearm offenses—R.C. 2929.71(A)—State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that firearm was operable for imposition of additional three years of actual incarceration for possession of firearm at time of offense—Proof beyond a reasonable doubt can be established by testimony of lay witnesses who were in a position to observe the instrument and circumstances surrounding the crime. (No. 94-220—Submitted February 7, 1995—Decided March 15, 1995.) CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Greene County, No. 93 CA 18. __________________ William F. Schenck, Greene County Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert K. Hendrix, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Martin, McCarty, Richman & Wright Co., L.P.A., and Gary E. Wright, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to the certified issue only, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated on the authority of State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 551 N.E.2d 932. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Ohio 178, 71 Ohio St. 3d 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dixon-ohio-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack