Legal Opinion

State v. Malinovsky

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1991No. 90-317PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

The General Assembly has granted prosecutors the right of *22appeal from an adverse ruling on a motion to suppress evidence prior to final disposition of a criminal prosecution. Crim. R. 12(J) reads:

“* * * The state may take an appeal as of right from the granting of a motion for the return of seized property, or from the granting of a motion to suppress evidence if, in addition to filing a notice of appeal, the prosecuting attorney certifies that: (1) the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay; and (2) the granting of the motion has rendered the state’s proof with respect to the pending…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. State v. DavidsonOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State v. CalhounOhio Supreme Court · 1985

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. State v. LoweOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. BroughtonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. EngleOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. City of Tallmadge v. McCoyOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. State v. HiattOhio Court of Appeals · 1997

26 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