State v. Watson

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Robinson

    2015 Ohio 4649 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 11 times

    Thus, R.C. 2923.16 does not unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Id.See also State v. Henderson, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2010–P–0046, 2012-Ohio-1268, 2012 WL 1029187, ¶ 55 ; State v. Watson, 157 Ohio App.3d 217, 2004-Ohio-2628, 810 N.E.2d 443, ¶ 20. {¶ 19} We conclude that the constitutional challenges advanced by appellant do not satisfy the plain error standard.

  2. State v. Broughton

    2012 Ohio 2526 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 4 times

    Id. {¶ 26} In State v. Watson, 157 Ohio App.3d 217, 2004-Ohio-2628, 810 N.E.2d 443, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.) the court stated “had [the officer] not searched the vehicle and not found the gun, [the officer] would have had no reason to arrest defendant. Thus, [the officer] would have permitted defendant to leave and, presumably, to reenter his vehicle.

  3. State v. Henderson

    2012 Ohio 1268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)

    Id. at ¶25. {¶40} Likewise, in State v. Watson, 157 Ohio App.3d 217, 2004-Ohio-2628 (4th Dist.), the defendant argued that R.C. 2923.16(C), the misdemeanor version of the statute, was unconstitutional because it impermissibly restricted his right to bear arms and was vague. The Fourth District overruled both arguments, stating at ¶20: "In Klein, the Supreme Court of Ohio explicitly rejected both of defendant's arguments, holding that '[R.C.] 2923.16(B) and (C) do not unconstitutionally infringe the right to bear arms' and that 'the affirmative defenses of R.C. 2923.16(C) * * * are not vague.'

  4. State v. Bragg

    2007 Ohio 5993 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)

    The resulting protective sweep of the SUV was reasonable under the circumstances. See State v. Watson, 157 Ohio App.3d 217, 2004-Ohio-2628, ¶ 15-16. {¶ 27} Further, assuming arguendo that the search was unreasonable (which it was not), suppression of the evidence should not be a foregone conclusion.