Legal Opinion

State v. Homan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 2000No. 99-1107PublishedCited by 270 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

This case presents two issues for our consideration. First, we are asked to consider whether, in administering field sobriety tests, the police must strictly comply with established, standardized procedures. The second issue concerns R.C. 2945.72(E), which provides that pretrial motions instituted by criminal defendants extend the time within which they must be brought to trial. Appellant contends that this extension can apply to additional, related charges brought against the defendant after the motion is filed.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that in order…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Beck v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Garrity v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. State v. SingerOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. State v. PlummerOhio Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by270 opinions

  1. State v. BurnsideOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. State v. ElmoreOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State v. BoczarOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State v. SchmittOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  5. State v. MaylOhio Supreme Court · 2005

265 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