State v. Joseph
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.
The motion for new trial on the ground of variance between the indictment and the proof was overruled, and this was one of the grounds of error urged before the Court of Appeals, but that court rested its judgment upon the other branch of the case and apparently did not rule upon the question of variance. Counsel for the accused still urge that assignment of error in this court, on the theory that, even though this court should find that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the case upon the other ground, its judgment is nevertheless correct because of the alleged error of the trial court…
2Cited by9 opinions
- State v. GingellOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Hameyer v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1947
- State v. OliverOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- O'Brien v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1939
- Pettijohn v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1947
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.