Legal Opinion

State v. Packard

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided August 15, 1988No. CA88-12-016PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly granted defendant-appellee’s motion to discharge on the basis of his constitutional right to a speedy trial pursuant to Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution and also the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The preceding constitutional sections guarantee to a defendant the right to a speedy trial. Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967), 386 U.S. 213; Smith v. Hooey (1969), 393 U.S. 374; Dickey v. Florida (1970), 398 U.S. 30. For the reasons set forth below,…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Klopfer v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Smith v. HooeySupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Dickey v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Moore v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. DoksaOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. State v. Messer, Ca2006-10-084 (11-5-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. State v. CollinsOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. State v. MintzOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. State v. BehymerOhio Court of Appeals · 1992

3 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