Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Knaff

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 29, 1998No. C-970162Published

1DissentHildebrandt, Presiding Judge

I must dissent from the decision of my colleagues holding that the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions bar Knaff s felony conviction for failure to comply. The majority employs an overly mechanical reading of the cases interpreting when jeopardy attaches to a plea before a trial judge, with the result that double jeopardy protection is extended to situations never contemplated by the state or federal Constitutions.

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a criminal defendant against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, a second prosecution for…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Ohio v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Ricketts v. AdamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Ortiz v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
  5. State v. AkinsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 1993

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API