State v. Baker
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.
At issue in this case is whether Ohio’s Constitution or speedy-trial statute requires additional criminal charges filed in a subsequent indictment to run from the date of defendant’s original arrest, with time tolled during the state’s audits of seized evidence, or whether the statute allows the state a new time period from the date of the subsequent indictment. For the following reasons, we hold that in issuing a subsequent indictment, the state is not subject to the speedy-trial timetable of the initial indictment, when additional criminal charges arise from facts…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Klopfer v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. BonarrigoOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. SingletonClermont County Court of Common Pleas · 1987
3Cited by104 opinions
- State v. Adams (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. ParkerOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. MastersOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
- State v. BakerOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.