Legal Opinion
State v. Warner
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 26, 1990No. Nos. 89-584 and 90-84PublishedCited by 188 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
Because Warner and Schiebel were tried together, numerous issues presented on appeal by the state and on cross-appeal by the defendants are intertwined. To avoid duplication, we have resolved issues common to both defendants in either the instant case or State v. Schiebel (1990), 55 Ohio St. 3d 71, 564 N.E. 2d 54.
89-584
In case No. 89-584, the issues are whether there was clear and convincing evidence that Warner was unavoidably prevented from timely filing his motion for a new trial, and whether the aliunde rule incorporated into Evid. R. 606(B) was violated. For the reasons expressed in…
2Cases cited62 opinions
- Irvin v. DowdSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Cupp v. NaughtenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Francis v. FranklinSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Reynolds v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by188 opinions
- State v. SchiebelOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. BrooksOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. DelvallieOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
- State v. ClintonOhio Supreme Court · 2017
183 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.