Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Snowden, 2008-A-0014 (12-12-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 12, 2008No. 2008-A-0014Published

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

  1. State v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Klein v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Wagner v. LongOhio Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Parm v. PattonOhio Court of Appeals · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API