Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Wohlever

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 5, 1985No. 3814Published

1Dissent

Baird J.,

dissenting. The error specified by the defendant is that the trial court failed to grant motions for acquittal at the conclusion of the state’s case, and again after the return of the verdict. Since she has not supplied a transcript of the trial proceedings,however, she is unable to demonstrate the error which she claims occurred at the conclusion of the state’s case. As to the motion made after the verdict was returned, Crim. R. 29(C) requires that such a motion be made within fourteen days, or such further time as the court may fix within the fourteen-day period. Here, the verdict…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. HeadleyOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. United States v. GilbertDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API