Legal Opinion
State v. Conley
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided August 23, 1971No. 1312PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
1. In Ms first assignment of error, the defendant, appellant herein, contends that the indictment fails to charge an offense in that it contains no allegation of knowledge or intent. The charge is bronght nnder R. C. 3719.44 (D), making it a crime to:
“Sell, barter, exchange, or give away, or make offer therefor, any hallucinogen except in accordance with sections 3719.40 to 3719.49, inclusive, of the Revised Code.”
The indictment reads in part:,<< * * * one Charles Eddie Conley unlawfully then and there did sell an hallucinogen, to-wit: LSD, said sale not being in accordance with Sections…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- State v. WhiteOhio Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. LaskeyOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- State v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 1967
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- State v. BlevinsOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
- State v. MaysOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Doggett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1975
- State v. GibbsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1976
- State v. JungCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1973
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.