State v. Clark
Ohio Court of Appeals
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
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.