State v. Jordan

18 Citing cases

  1. State v. Scott

    Case No. 99 CA 324 (Ohio Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2001)

    Furthermore, in cases where a search for ammunition or the parts of a gun were upheld, the warrant had specifically listed these items. See, e.g., State v. Jordan (Apr. 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73453, to be reported, 13 (where the search warrant specified a 9mm or any other handgun and ammunition); State v. Van Johnson (Feb. 1, 1990), Montgomery App. No. 11347, unreported, 5 (where the search warrant authorized a search for firearms, ammunition and parts of firearms, and where an officer's affidavit articulated probable cause to believe that parts of firearms would be discovered that assisted the suspects in converting semiautomatic weapons into automatic weapons). In other cases, the seizure of ammunition, shell casings or gun parts was upheld after it was discovered in plain view in a place which could have concealed the specifically identified object of the search.

  2. State v. Woods

    No. 78752 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2001)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, the Kole court determined that the name and nature of a prior conviction was a necessary element in order for the state to carry its burden of proof, unlike the offense addressed by the federal statute. The Kole court supported its position with a case from this district, State v. Jordan (Apr. 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73453, unreported, 1999 Ohio App. Lexis 1956. We find the Ninth Appellate District's reliance on Jordan misplaced, however.

  3. Martin v. Wilson

    419 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Ohio 2006)   Cited 2 times

    See e.g., State v. Henton. 700 N.E.2d 371, 375 (Ohio Ct.App. July 14, 1997) (trial court abused its discretion in rejecting defendant's offer to stipulate to existence of a prior conviction and allowing the prosecution to present evidence of two prior convictions solely to prove the element of an offense); State v. Totarella, No. 2002-L-147, 2004 WL 473382, at *5-7 (Ohio Ct.App. Mar. 12, 2004) (citing Old Chief and holding that the trial court erred by including the name and nature of defendant's prior convictions in the defendant's stipulation). But see, e.g., State v. Jordan, No. 73453, 1999 WL 257808, at (Ohio Ct.App. Apr. 29, 1999) (distinguishing Old Chief). Old Chief stated that evidence of the name or nature of the prior conviction generally carried a risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant, and that risk will be substantial "whenever the official record offered by the Government would be arresting enough to lure a juror into a sequence of bad character reasoning.

  4. State v. Jordan

    2015 Ohio 4977 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)

    Cleveland, Ohio 44113 ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.: {¶1} On August 3, 2015, the applicant, Christopher Jordan, pursuant to App.R. 26(B), applied to reopen this court's judgment in State v. Jordan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73453, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 1956 (Apr. 29, 1999), in which this court affirmed Jordan's convictions for aggravated murder and having a weapon while under disability, but reversed and remanded with instructions to merge the aggravated robbery and aggravated murder convictions. Jordan asserts that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he should have argued, inter alia, (1) cumulative error denied him a fair trial, (2) the trial court did not make the necessary statutory findings to impose maximum sentences, (3) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for aggravated murder, (4) relevant evidence was excluded, (5) the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of witnesses, and (6) the trial court erred in allowing evidence of a prior conviction of Jordan.

  5. State v. Bibler

    2014 Ohio 3375 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    See Robinson at ¶ 50 (The language of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) reflects that the General Assembly envisioned jurors learning the name and basic nature of the defendant's prior offense.); State v. Jordan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73453, 1999 WL 257808, * 11 (Apr. 29, 1999) (A prior conviction is an essential element of the offense, and the trial court was not presented with an adequate evidentiary alternative that would have satisfied the prior-conviction element.); State v. Carr, 11th Dist. Lake No. 98–L–131, 1999 WL 1314672, *3–4 (Dec. 10, 1999) (The name and nature of a defendant's prior DUI convictions were necessary, as an element of the offense, in order for the jury to find the defendant guilty of the fourth-degree felony of driving under the influence of alcohol.), citing State v. Payne, 11th Dist. Lake No. 97–L–284, 1999 WL 262177, *4 (Mar. 31, 1999) (The State is required to prove that the defendant had three or more prior DUI convictions within the last six years as an element of the offense charged.).

  6. State v. Grice

    2012 Ohio 1938 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)

    {¶33} In this case, a review of the instance that forms the basis of Grice's fifth assignment of error fails to demonstrate that an abuse of discretion occurred. Although it is true that counsel generally is afforded wide latitude by the trial court during closing arguments, that latitude is not unlimited. State v. Jordan, 8th Dist. No. 73453, 1999 WL 257808 (Apr. 29, 1999), citing Kubiszak v. Rini's Supermarket, 77 Ohio App.3d 679, 688, 603 N.E.2d 308 (8th Dist.1991). The trial court's decision to restrict Grice from arguing to the jury that absence of flight demonstrated lack of consciousness of guilt on his part, without more, was not in itself unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

  7. State v. Pustelnik

    2009 Ohio 3458 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

    {¶ 50} With regard to defendant's challenge to the search warrant provision authorizing the search for "any and all evidence pertaining to violations of the laws of the State of Ohio to wit: Chapters 2925 and 2923 of the Ohio Revised Code," we note that this court approved a similar provision in State v. Young, Clermont App. No. CA2005-08-074, 2006-Ohio-1784. Cf. State v. Jordan (April 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73453. {¶ 51} With regard to defendant's claim that the search warrant impermissibly authorized the search of "any persons present therein," this provision was upheld in State v. Kinney (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 85, 1998-Ohio-425, 698 N.E.2d 49.

  8. State v. Smidt-Walker

    2008 Ohio 3034 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

    '"Where issues of identity and participation in a criminal act are presented in the same trial of two or more codefendants, a verdict of guilty as to one codefendant will not support a claim of an inconsistent verdict.'" State v. Jordan (Apr. 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73453, quoting State v. Hirsch (1956), 101 Ohio App. 425, 431. The trial court found that Shane did not possess the requisite criminal intent for theft because he returned the playset after he was informed that Rice wanted it back, but that appellant's criminal intent was proven by her self-same refusal to return the property.

  9. State v. Johnson

    2007 Ohio 2501 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)

    As we have stated previously, "Joinder of defendants is the rule rather than the exception." State v. Jordan (Apr. 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73453.

  10. State v. Tisdel

    2006 Ohio 6763 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    In a similar case, this Court held that "the state was required to prove the prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prove the offense itself and a defendant is not entitled to waive a jury on that element alone. State v. Jordan (April 29, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73453, distinguishing Old Chief v. U.S. (1997), 519 U.S. 172, citing State v. Berger (Feb. 19, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 71618; State v. Adams (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 139. See, also, State v. Hilliard, Summit App. No. 22808, 2006-Ohio-3918, T|26; State v. Kole (June 28, 2000), Lorain App. No. 98CA007116, reversed on other grounds (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 303; State v. Carr (Dec. 10, 1999), Lake App. No. 98-L-131; State v. Woods (Aug. 30, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78752 (reading of the indictment to the jury that included reference to prior conviction does not raise to level of plain error).