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
- United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- State v. DavidsonOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- State v. CalhounOhio Supreme Court · 1985
3Cited by31 opinions
- State v. LoweOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. BroughtonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. EngleOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- City of Tallmadge v. McCoyOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
- State v. HiattOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.