Legal Opinion

State v. McMillan

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided September 27, 1993No. 62382PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Patton, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant the state of Ohio (the “state”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of defendant William McMillan’s motion to suppress illegally seized evidence. The trial court concluded that McMillan’s co-defendant below, Tonya Blackman, did not voluntarily consent and could not have voluntarily consented to a search of their shared residence.

The relevant facts are as follows: This case is a companion case to State v. McMillan (Sept. 16, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62795, unreported, 1993 WL 372275. McMillan and Blackman cohabitated at an apartment at Gates Mills…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. United States v. PaynerSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. State v. HicksonOhio Court of Appeals · 1990

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. PierceOhio Court of Appeals · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API