Herring v. Ohio

Decision Date07 October 2002
Docket NumberNo. 02-5467.,02-5467.
Citation537 U.S. 917
PartiesHERRING v. OHIO.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 94 Ohio St. 3d 246, 762 N. E. 2d 940.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Herring
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 3 Diciembre 2014
    ...convictions and death sentence. Id. at 269, 762 N.E.2d 940. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Herring v. Ohio, 537 U.S. 917, 123 S.Ct. 301, 154 L.Ed.2d 202 (2002).III. Postconviction proceedingsA. Herring's postconviction claim{¶ 19} On September 17, 1999, Herring filed his......
  • State v. Herring, 2004 Ohio 5357 (OH 10/1/2004), Case No. 03 MA 12.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 2004
    ...from the body of Jimmie Lee Jones." State v. Herring (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 246, 246-248, 762 N.E.2d 940, cert. denied Herring v. Ohio (2002), 537 U.S. 917, 123 S.Ct. 301. {¶22} The case proceeded to jury trial on December 16, 1997, and on January 29, 1998, the jury rendered its verdict find......
  • Wallace v. Ohio Department of Commerce, No. 99AP-1303 (Ohio App. 12/18/2003), 99AP-1303.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 18 Diciembre 2003
    ... ... However, a trial court's discretion is not unlimited. Miller , at 616. An "abuse of discretion" implies that a court acted in "an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner." State ex rel. Sartini v. Yost , 96 Ohio St.3d 37, 2002-Ohio-3317, at ¶21, citing State v. Herring (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 246, 255, reconsideration denied, 95 Ohio St.3d 1423, certiorari denied, 537 U.S. 917, 123 S.Ct. 301 ...          {¶50} According to Evid.R. 702: ...         A witness may testify as an expert if all of the following apply: ...         * * * ... ...
  • Stuller v. Price, 2004 Ohio 4416 (OH 8/24/2004)
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 24 Agosto 2004
    ... ... * * * ' The term "abuse of discretion" * * * implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.' * * * '[W]hen applying this standard, an appellate court is not free to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.' " State v. Herring (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 246, 255, certiorari denied, 537 U.S. 917, 123 S.Ct. 301 ...          {¶88} Here, plaintiffs concurred that the jury previously had heard the testimony contained in the demonstrative exhibits. (Tr. Vol. VI, 1130.) Thus, through these demonstrative exhibits, the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT