Armstrong v. State

Hamilton Circuit Court

Armstrong v. State

15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 368, 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 224

DecidedDecember 14, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 368 (Armstrong v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. State, 15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 368, 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 224 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

We are of the opinion that the court erred in refusing to hear and determine the motion for a new trial on its merits, and, until such hearing by the trial court, this court is without jurisdiction to pass upon alleged errors occurring at the trial.

The plaintiff in error has a statutory right to have his motion determined in the court below. _ But we hold that he has no constitutional right to be present at the hearing as same is no part of the trial.

The court below is, therefore, directed to hear and pass upon the motion for a new trial upon the grounds therein stated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

We are of the opinion that the court erred in refusing to hear and determine the motion for a new trial on its merits, and, until such hearing by the trial court, this court is without jurisdiction to pass upon alleged errors occurring at the trial.

The plaintiff in error has a statutory right to have his motion determined in the court below. _ But we hold that he has no constitutional right to be present at the hearing as same is no part of the trial.

The court below is, therefore, directed to hear and pass upon the motion for a new trial upon the grounds therein stated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 368, 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-ohcircthamilton-1912.