State v. Othman
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Michael J. Corrigan, Presiding Judge.
I
{¶ 1} This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the file from the criminal court, the transcript from the sentencing hearing of December 14, 2001, and briefs of counsel. Defendant-appellant Nadeel Othman’s motion to. supplement the record with the victim’s medical records was denied.
{¶ 2} Othman was originally indicted on four counts following the sexual assault of a sixteen year old. Othman participated in the assault with others who were also charged but who are not parties to this appeal. After a…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. LatronicaOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- State v. SwihartOhio Court of Appeals · 2013