Legal Opinion

State v. Graven

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1978No. 76-1290PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Per curiam

1

Considering, first, appellant’s argument that the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the testimony of state’s witness Anne Bloomberg in rebuttal, which, appellant contends, did not counteract any of the evidence by the defense but merely bolstered the state’s case in chief, we find it to be without merit.

Appellee contends that Anne Bloomberg’s testimony that appellant during the time herein involved drove a political candidate to and from various campaign functions, that appellant did proportionally more driving than other volunteer drivers, that she had little trouble…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Holland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  2. State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State v. KuligOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  4. State v. GordonOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  5. State v. NeviusOhio Supreme Court · 1947

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

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. LottOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State v. ApanovitchOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  5. State v. HankersonOhio Supreme Court · 1982

37 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