Legal Opinion

Brookhart v. Haskins

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 31, 1965No. 39132PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

It is petitioner’s contention that he was not tried upon an indictment returned by a grand jury hut rather upon one returned by the prosecutor. During the course of the trial, upon motion by the prosecutor, the court permitted the indictment to be amended to conform to the evidence. These amendments consisted of corrections of the check numbers and the amounts on two of the checks set forth in the indictment and also the correction of the name of the payee on one of the checks set forth in the indictment.

Section 2941.30, Revised Code, provides in part as follows:

“The court may at any time…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Tucker v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1912
  3. State v. LaroseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
  4. Young v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1912
  5. McNab v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Brookhart v. JanisSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. State v. HermanOhio Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. State v. MehozonekOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Second Baptist Church v. Mount Zion Baptist ChurchNevada Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Pulliam v. PulliamCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984

6 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