Citation network
Ohio Vs. Johnson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 11, 1984
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 493 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
U.S. 493 (1984) Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brown v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 161 , 432 U. S. 165 (1977), quoting North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
while increasing the risk of an erroneous conviction or an impermissibly enhanced sentence. See, e.g., United States v. WilsonSearch
-
Green v. UnitedSearch
-
the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the legislature, United States v. WiltbergerSearch
-
is essentially one of legislative intent, see Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
ensures that, after a subsequent conviction, a defendant receives credit for time already served. North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
against multiple prosecutions. Brief for Respondent 17-18. He concedes that, on the authority of our decision in Brown v. OhioSearch
-
a greater offense when he has already been tried and acquitted or convicted on the lesser included offense. See Brown v. OhioSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
been convicted in a separate proceeding of joyriding, which was a lesser included offense of auto theft. Brown v. OhioSearch
-
lesser included offenses rendered by a jury charged to consider both greater and lesser included offenses. Cf. Price v. GeorgiaSearch
-
would deny the State its right to one full and fair opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws. Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 497 , 434 U. S. 509 (1978). We think this is an even clearer case than Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
two crimes share common elements such that the commission of one crime will necessitate commission of the other. State v. LoganSearch
-
interpretation accords with the statement in the opinion that the principles of collateral estoppel applied in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
since that is the only portion of the opinion on which a majority of the court must agree. See State ex rel. Donahey v. EdmondsonSearch
-
Perkins v. BenguetSearch
-
do not suggest that the opinion is not germane to interpreting the court's holding as expressed in its syllabus. Hart v. AndrewsSearch
-
protection was being invoked, when coupled with the references in the opinion to our decisions in North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
U. S. 711 (1969), and Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
In the federal courts, the test established in Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
determines whether the crimes are indeed separate, and whether cumulative punishments may be imposed. See Albernaz v. UnitedSearch
-
Whalen v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 445 U. S. 684 , 445 U. S. 691 (1980). As should be evident from our decision in Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
on the remaining charges is barred by the principles of collateral estoppel enunciated by this Court in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
taking of a guilty plea is not the same as an adjudication on the merits after full trial, such as took place in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
Price v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
United States v. WilsonSearch
-
Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
See Brown v. OhioSearch
-
Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. LoganSearch
-
Donahey v. EdmondsonSearch
-
Perkins v. BenguetSearch
-
Hart v. AndrewsSearch
-
and Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
See Albernaz v. UnitedSearch
-
Price v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial