Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Walden v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 29, 1989No. Nos. 88-1434 and 88-1440, 88-1435 and 88-1439Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAlice Robie Resnick, J.
I concur with the majority that a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial is not to be given preclusive effect in an R.C. 2305.02 proceeding. I also agree that a claimant in such a proceeding bears the burden of proving his or her innocence by a preponderance rather than by clear and convincing evidence. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that a person who is acquitted by reason of self-defense may seek compensation for wrongful imprisonment under R.C. 2305.02 and 2743.48.
While I agree with the majority that “offense” and “crime” generally are synonymous, I do not believe…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Martin v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- State v. MartinOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- State v. PooleOhio Supreme Court · 1973
- Hoffner v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1955
- Ebberts v. State Board of ControlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.