Case Citator › State v. Richey

State v. Richey

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
64 Ohio St. 3d 353
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
43 of 43
Citing cases (total)
43
Treatment dates
1997
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. All 43 flagged citations have been read. State v. McGuire displaced State v. Richey's rule that residual doubt could mitigate a death sentence.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. Later Ohio Supreme Court opinions continue to apply Richey's other holdings; State v. Spaulding describes McGuire as overruling Richey on other grounds.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

43 later cases cite State v. Richey; 43 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Richey?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Richey's rule allowing residual doubt to count as a mitigating factor in capital sentencing.

    State v. McGuire · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    In past cases, this court has held that residual doubt could be a mitigating factor. E.g., State v. Watson (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 1, 572 N.E.2d 97; State v. Richey (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 353, 372, 595 N.E.2d 915, 931; State v. Gillard (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 226, 234, 533 N.E.2d 272, 281. ... Residual doubt is not an acceptable mitigating factor under R.C. 2929.04(B), since it is irrelevant to the issue of whether the defendant should be sentenced to *404death.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Richey and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace