Woods v. Ohio

CourtU.S. Supreme Court
CitationWoods v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 910 (1978)
Decision Date03 July 1978
Docket Number76-1308.
PartiesWOODS ET AL. v. OHIO.

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion of American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated insofar as it leaves undisturbed the death penalty imposed, and case remanded for further proceedings. See Lockett v. Ohio, ante, p. 586.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
594 cases
  • State v. Milton
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 2013
    ...48 Ohio St.2d 391, 2 O.O.3d 495, 358 N.E.2d 623(1976), paragraph three of the syllabus, vacated on other grounds in 438 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3135, 57 L.Ed.2d 1154(1978). Accord, State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St.3d 137, 2012-Ohio-6208, 984 N.E.2d 1057, ¶29. {¶29} Milton has failed to articulate any ......
  • State v. McKelton
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 13, 2016
    ... 148 Ohio St.3d 261 70 N.E.3d 508 2016 Ohio 5735 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. McKELTON, Appellant. No. 2010–2198. Supreme Court of Ohio. Submitted Jan ... Allen suffered a miscarriage later that month. 2. The Murder of Missy Allen {¶ 14} On July 27, 2008, a woman was found dead in woods on the east side of Cincinnati. A piece of plastic resembling a shower-curtain liner was wrapped around the victim's thighs, and a bag of counterfeit ... ...
  • State v. Collins, 2005 Ohio 1642 (OH 4/5/2005)
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • April 5, 2005
    ...v. Black (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 262, 2 O.O.3d 422, 358 N.E.2d 551, paragraph four of the syllabus, vacated in part (1978), 438 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3134, 57 L.Ed.2d 1154. Thus, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is not voluntary within the Fifth Amen......
  • State v. Stallings
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • July 19, 2000
    ...v. Bates (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 315, 323, 2 O.O.3d 453, 457, 358 N.E.2d 584, 589, judgment vacated on other grounds by (1978), 438 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3135, 57 L.Ed.2d 1154. Use of a In proposition of law VI, defendant also complains about standard instructions as to the use of a weapon. The ......
  • Get Started for Free