Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Clark

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 3, 1974No. 31483Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDay, J.

This is an appeal by three defendants, hereafter called appellants, from a conviction of violation of R. C. 2901.23, “Intentional Shooting”. The appellants assign seven errors. 3 The majority finds none of the assignments well taken. The majority affirms the conviction. I would find the second, third, and fourth assignments well taken and the seventh well taken in part. I would reverse. The basis of the disposition in this case is of such gravity that it warrants a formal opinion. Judge Krenzler has addressed the third and fourth assignments for the majority. 4 Except where there are contrary…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971

14 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