Case Citator › State v. Colon

State v. Colon

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
119 Ohio St. 3d 204
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
32 of 32
Citing cases (total)
32
Treatment dates
2010
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Colon (Colon II) was overruled in part by the Supreme Court of Ohio. All 32 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below: State v. Horner rejected Colon II's conclusion that an indictment tracking the statute could be defective because it omitted an unstated mental state. Horner's express ruling was limited to that defect; Colon II's discussion of prospective application and plain error was not expressly overruled.

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.

32 later cases cite State v. Colon; 32 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. Colon?

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

  • An indictment tracking the criminal statute is not defective merely because it omits a mental state the statute does not specify; Colon II was overruled to the extent it held otherwise.

    State v. Horner · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    Today we recognize the confusion created by Colon I and II and hold that when an indictment fails to charge a mens rea element of the crime, but tracks the language of the criminal statute describing the offense, the indictment provides the defendant with adequate notice of the charges against him and is, therefore, not defective. See State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403, 2006-Ohio-4707, 853 N.E.2d 1162 (an indictment that does not identify the elements of a predicate offense provides adequate notice by citing the statute defining the predicate offense). Consequently, we respond to the certified question by holding that Colon I, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624, 885 N.E.2d 917, and Colon II, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 169, are inapplicable to the offense of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3). In fact, Colon I is overruled, and Colon II is overruled to the extent that it holds that such an indictment is defective.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Colon 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