Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion)

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 2016No. 2015-0677Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKennedy, J.

{¶ 33} I agree with the majority that the discretionary-bindover process under R.C. 2152.10(B) and 2152.12(B) through (E) does not offend due process as guaranteed by Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution. I part with the majority, however, in its determination that Article I, Section 16 provides a unique protection that R.C. 2152.10(A), which sets forth the mandatory-bindover process, violates on its face.

{¶ 34} State courts are “free to construe their state constitutions as providing different or even broader individual liberties than those provided under the federal Constitution.”…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API