Legal Opinion

State v. Saffell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1988No. 86-786PublishedCited by 85 opinions

1Per curiam

R.C. 2945.72 provides in relevant part that: “* * * the time within which an accused must be brought to trial * * * may be extended only by * * * (H) * * * the period of any reasonable continuance granted other than upon the accused’s own motion.”

While R.C. 2945.71 prescribes that the instant defendant be brought to trial within ninety days of her arrest, the above-quoted statutory section permits a continuance beyond the ninety-day limit so long as the continuance is reasonable. In addition, precedent requires that such a continuance be necessary under the circumstances of the case. Aurora…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. MincyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. State v. LeeOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. City of Aurora v. PatrickOhio Supreme Court · 1980

3Cited by85 opinions

  1. State v. WellsOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. State v. StampsOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. State v. HirschOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. State v. ShabazzOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. State v. Conkright, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

80 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