Legal Opinion

State v. Baker

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1997No. 96-346PublishedCited by 104 opinions

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

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Klopfer v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State v. BonarrigoOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State v. SingletonClermont County Court of Common Pleas · 1987

3Cited by104 opinions

  1. State v. Adams (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State v. ParkerOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State v. MastersOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. State v. BakerOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 2012

99 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