Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Moore

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 3, 1994No. 92-L-092Published

1DissentChristley, Presiding Judge

While I concur in the analysis of the lead opinion as to the final six assignments, I cannot agree with its treatment of the first assignment. In concluding that appellant was not denied a fair trial as a result of certain statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, the lead opinion holds that the statements were not prejudicial because they were warranted under both the law of this state and the facts of this case.

After reviewing the relevant case law and the record before us, I conclude that the statements were prejudicial because they contain a misstatement concerning…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Arnold v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. State v. McLeodOhio Court of Appeals · 1948
  4. State v. ChildersOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  5. State v. MarshOhio Court of Appeals · 1990

2 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