Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Keith

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 15, 1999No. Trial No. C-98CRB-42609. Appeal No. C-990034Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPainter, J.

I concur in the reversal. I dissent as to the remand. I would hold that Keith’s conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and based on insufficient evidence. We should discharge the defendant. If money is owed, a civil case may be filed.

Criminal charges should never have been brought, the case should never have been prosecuted, the defendant should not have been convicted, and the case should not be remanded to continue the chain of error.

This case is another example of overuse of the criminal law. 1 When the trial judge’s opinion discusses words like “novation” (a contract…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. VitaleOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. State v. FyffeOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. State v. GlennHamilton County Municipal Court · 1990
  4. State v. HowellHamilton County Municipal Court · 1994
  5. United States v. William L. HodgeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API