Legal Opinion
State v. Torres
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 10, 1981No. 80-1178PublishedCited by 279 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
The principal question is whether defendant Paul Torres was prejudiced, as he claims and as the Court of Appeals agreed, by the refusal of the trial court to grant him separate trials of the two indictments, under Crim. R. 14.1 He implicitly concedes that the trial court could in the first instance join the two indictments for trial under Crim. R. 13 because the charges could have been originally joined in one in*343dictment under Crim. R. 8(A)2 as offenses of the same or similar character or offenses based on two transactions connected together. As we stated in State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Opper v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- State v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. RobertsOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Henry Kenneth Wangrow v. United States of America (Two Cases). Daniel Edmund Czajkowski and Mark Edward Murphy v. United States of America (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
- United States v. William P. Catena, M.D.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by279 opinions
- State v. LottOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. MillsOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. SchiebelOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. LaMarOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. FranklinOhio Supreme Court · 1991
274 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.