State v. Long
- Court
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Decided
- February 15, 1978
- Docket
- No. 77-174
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Ohio
Cited 3,848 timesQuestioned (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: questioned (not yet verified) · State v. Smith
What later courts said
- concluding that a defendant’s failure to object to a jury instruction at trial forecloses appellate review of the instruction absent plain error given Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule — Jermaine Adams v. Lyneal Wainwright (2022)
- finding failure to object to a jury instruction at trial, as required by Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule, forecloses appellate review of the instruction absent plain error — Adams v. Clipper (2020)
- failure to object to a jury instruction at trial, as required by Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule, foreclosed appellate review of the instruction absent plain error — Baston v. Bagley (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Herbert, J.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that he bore the burden of proving the affirmative defense of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, this being in violation of B. C. 2901.05(A)[1] and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
We agree that the trial court’s instruction was erroneous and not in conformity with E. C. 2901.05(A). See State v. Robinson (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 103, 351 N. E. 2d 88; State v. Humphries (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 95, 364 N. E. 2d 1354. However, the error was waivable under appropriate circumstances.
Cite this
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St. 2d 91 (1978)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.