Legal Opinion
State v. Ross
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 28, 2010No. 2009-1619PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCupp, J.
{¶ 1} This appeal presents the issue of whether a trial court, having denied a timely filed Crim.R. 29(C) motion for acquittal, may reconsider its ruling and grant the motion based on the defendant’s renewed motion filed after the 14-day time period in Crim.R. 29(C) has expired.
{¶ 2} In this case, the trial court denied appellee Denny Ross’s timely filed motion for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29(C). However, well after the expiration of the time period for making a motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(C), Ross filed a supplemental memorandum urging the trial court to grant him an…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Kontrick v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- State v. WhitakerOhio Supreme Court · 2022
- State v. CaliseOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. RossOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- State v. AwkalOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.