State v. Hamilton
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.
The narrow question properly certified to this court involves the statutory interpretation of R.C. 2953.32(B). In the present case, because there was no written objection filed by the prosecutor with the court prior to the hearing, Hamilton argues that it was error for the trial court to consider the facts elicited and arguments presented by the prosecutor at the hearing. To the contrary, we adjudge that R.C. 2953.32(B) does not require the filing of a written objection as a prerequisite to a prosecutor’s participation in the expungement hearing. Rather, as an alternative to appearing at the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Escoe v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- State v. SellardsOhio Supreme Court · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by127 opinions
- State v. PariagOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- State v. FutrallOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. SimonOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. Aguirre (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- The State Ex Rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, JudgeOhio Supreme Court · 2014
122 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.