Legal Opinion

State v. Broughton

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1991No. 91-742PublishedCited by 96 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

The primary issue before the court is whether the time in which to bring Broughton to trial on his second indictment had expired, pursuant to Ohio’s speedy-trial statute. For the reasons that follow, we answer such query in the negative.

*256I

Speedy-Trial Computation

The key fact we must discern from the record in this case is how much time had run against the state pursuant to R.C. 2945.71 et seq., in order to determine whether Broughton’s speedy-trial rights were violated.

The right to a speedy trial is encompassed within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. United States v. MarionSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. State v. LongOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  5. United States v. LovascoSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

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

3Cited by96 opinions

  1. City of Brecksville v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. MyersOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. SanchezOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Brecksville v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. MyersOhio Supreme Court · 2002

91 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