Legal Opinion

State v. Baker

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1997No. 1996-0346PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 108.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. BAKER, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Baker,

1997-Ohio-229.] Criminal law—In issuing a subsequent indictment, state is not subject to the speedy-trial timetable of the initial indictment, when. In issuing a subsequent indictment, the state is not subject to the speedy-trial timetable of the initial indictment, when additional criminal charges arise from facts different from the original charges, or the state did not know of these facts at the time of the initial indictment. (No.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Klopfer v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State v. BakerOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State v. BonarrigoOhio Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. State v. Clark, Ca2007-03-037 (10-6-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  2. State v. Cox, Ca2008-03-028 (3-2-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. State v. HarveyOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. State v. Messer, Ca2006-10-084 (11-5-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. State v. NelsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2024

28 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