State v. Thompkins
- Court
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Decided
- May 14, 1997
- Docket
- No. 95-2647
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Ohio
Cited 16,183 timesOverruled on other grounds (verified)Overruled on other grounds (verified) · City of Akron v. Hogan, Unpublished Decision (11-8-2006)
What later courts said
- holding that where an individual brandishes a gun and implicitly but not expressly threatens to discharge it, the threat can be sufficient to satisfy the state's burden of proving operability — State v. Bowman, Unpublished Decision (11-21-2006) (2006)
- acknowledging that the appellate court does not address the issue of whether it should believe the evidence when reviewing the sufficiency of such evidence — State v. M.B., 08ap-169 (2-19-2009) (2009)
- holding the criminal standard of review for manifest weight of the evidence applies in civil cases — Martin v. Martin (2016)
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
Douglas, J.
The state of Ohio has filed an appeal from the judgment of the court of appeals and Thompkins has filed a cross-appeal. The parties have set forth various issues for our consideration. However, we limit our review solely to two important issues. The first issue concerns what type of evidence is sufficient to prove the operability of a firearm. The second issue involves whether the court of appeals properly reversed Thompkins’s firearm conviction by a majority vote, given the language of Section 3(B)(3), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. Additionally, the second issue requires a determination of whether the phrase “weight of the evidence” as used in Section 3(B)(3), Article IV, is equivalent to the legal concept of “sufficiency of the evidence.”
I
Cite this
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380 (1997)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.