State v. Italiano
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtReilly, J.
Defendant-appellant’s first two propositions of law raise but one issue: whether the state proved that defendant gave money to the officers with the purpose to influence them in the discharge of their duties. Defendant argues that the officers’ sole duty at the pretrial is to relate the operative facts to the prosecutor, and that it is only the prosecutor who is empowered to negotiate a reduction of the charge. As a one-time city prosecutor and an experienced defense attorney, defendant notes, he was aware that the officers had no authority to reduce the charges against his client. Moreover,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. DehassOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- United States v. BirdsallSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- State v. KuligOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. DoranOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Kable v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. CherasoOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- State v. RiosOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
- McCutcheon v. Ohio State Medical Bd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989
- State v. KnightOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.