State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- 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.