Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Smith

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 30, 1983No. CA83-03-004Published

1DissentRingland, J.

I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The proposed amendments to the indictments as they occurred are contrary to statute, the revised rules, case law, and the Ohio Constitution as more fully set forth below. While Crim. R. 7(D) permits amendments to indictments that do not change the name or identity of the crime, it is clear that these amendments in the indictments change the identity of the crimes.

R.C. 2945.75 states in part:

“(A) When the presence of one or more additional elements makes an offense one of more serious degree:
“(1) The affidavit, complaint, indictment, or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. HeadleyOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Harris v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Campfield v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 1950
  4. Lisbon Salesbook Co. v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API