Legal Opinion

State v. Dilley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1989No. 88-1710PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

The sole issue presented in this case is whether a specification contained in R.C. 2941.143 can be added to an indictment by amendment pursuant to Crim. R. 7(D).

The appellant asserts that since the prior conviction specification of R.C. 2941.143 does not change the name or identity of the crime charged, and because this amendment to the in*21dictment was not presented to the jury during trial, the appellee has not suffered any prejudice. Therefore, the appellant contends that the amendment was proper pursuant to Crim. R. 7(D).

In order to resolve this issue it is necessary to consider R.C.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. AllenOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. State v. O'BrienOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Malloy v. City of WestlakeOhio Supreme Court · 1977

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State v. NolingOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State v. NolingOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. BastonOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Baston v. BagleyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2003
  5. State v. VitaleOhio Court of Appeals · 1994

14 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