State v. Snowden, 2008-A-0014 (12-12-2008)
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Dissent
{¶ 34} I respectfully dissent. The judgment entry of the trial court did not constitute a judgment of acquittal. The trial court specifically granted Snowden a new trial based on Crim. R. 33(A)(4), which states that a new trial may be granted if "[t]he verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law." In addition, both the form and the substance of Snowden's motion were based on Crim. R. 33(A)(4). "[A] pleading is judged, not by its title or form alone, but essentially by the subject-matter it contains. If the title is not descriptive of the subject-matter, it is the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Klein v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1968
- Wagner v. LongOhio Supreme Court · 1937
- Parm v. PattonOhio Court of Appeals · 1969