State v. Wright

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Wright

764 N.E.2d 1035, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1504, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 693

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 20, 2002

Docket02-234

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 764 N.E.2d 1035 (State v. Wright) 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. Wright, 764 N.E.2d 1035, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1504, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 693 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Washington App. No. 00CA39. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Entry on Application to Certify dated January 28, 2002:

“[W]e find that our decision and judgment presents an actual conflict based upon the same question' that was involved in the Twelfth District’s decision and judgment. In [State d.] Henderson [(1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 290, 601 N.E.2d 596], the court concluded that a victim’s uncorroborated allegations of sexual abuse did not fulfill the substantial proof requirement that the defendant committed other similar crimes. In [the case sub judice], we determined that a victim’s uncorroborated allegation of prior sexual abuse was admissible. Thus, we declined to follow Henderson.

“Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion to certify this matter to the Ohio Supreme Court for [1505]*1505review and final determination.”

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

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

Washington App. No. 00CA39. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Entry on Application to Certify dated January 28, 2002:

“[W]e find that our decision and judgment presents an actual conflict based upon the same question' that was involved in the Twelfth District’s decision and judgment. In [State d.] Henderson [(1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 290, 601 N.E.2d 596], the court concluded that a victim’s uncorroborated allegations of sexual abuse did not fulfill the substantial proof requirement that the defendant committed other similar crimes. In [the case sub judice], we determined that a victim’s uncorroborated allegation of prior sexual abuse was admissible. Thus, we declined to follow Henderson.

“Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion to certify this matter to the Ohio Supreme Court for [1505]*1505review and final determination.”

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 N.E.2d 1035, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1504, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wright-ohio-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack