Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Matthews

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 1, 1992No. Nos. 61139, 60434Published

1DissentJames D. Sweeney, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

The adamant denial by the prosecutor that at the time of trial any kind of an agreement had been made in exchange for Theodore Roulette’s testimony causes the majority, and this writer, great concern. The record is clear, and the majority correctly recognizes, that at least as to Roulette (the sole eyewitness to the shooting), an understanding between the state and the witness had been reached at the time of this trial regarding Roulette’s present testimony and considerations to be extended by the state on his behalf in sentencing on a pending unrelated multiple felony…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. WoleryOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  2. State v. AldridgeOhio Court of Appeals · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API