From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Dixon

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 15, 1995
71 Ohio St. 3d 608 (Ohio 1995)

Summary

In Dixon, the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery, with a firearm specification in connection with a convenience store robbery.

Summary of this case from State v. Woods

Opinion

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.


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.


Summaries of

State v. Dixon

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 15, 1995
71 Ohio St. 3d 608 (Ohio 1995)

In Dixon, the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery, with a firearm specification in connection with a convenience store robbery.

Summary of this case from State v. Woods

expanding the criteria for operability as contained in State v. Murphy, supra, to include implicit threats

Summary of this case from State v. Gest
Case details for

State v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. DIXON, APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 15, 1995

Citations

71 Ohio St. 3d 608 (Ohio 1995)
646 N.E.2d 453

Citing Cases

State v. Woods

Id.; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259; and State v. Dixon (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 608, followed; R.C.…

State v. Watkins

In determining whether an individual was in possession of a firearm and whether the firearm was operable or…