Legal Opinion

State v. Griffith

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1996No. Nos. 95-209 and 95-398PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This cause is before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in Columbus v. Reid (1986), 32 Ohio App.3d 7, 513 N.E.2d 351, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in Lakewood v. Waselenchuk (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 684, 641 N.E.2d 767, upon the following question:

“Does imposition of the exclusionary rule lie as a remedy for police violation of the accused’s statutory right to counsel under Section 2935.20 of the Revised Code in a prosecution arising under Section…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Lakewood v. WaselenchukOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. City of Fairborn v. MattachioneOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. City of Columbus v. ReidOhio Court of Appeals · 1986

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. WeidemanOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State v. SiminOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  3. State v. WeidemanOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State v. StoverOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. Columbus v. Dixon, 07ap-536 (4-29-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

6 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