Armstrong v. State

Ohio Circuit Courts

Armstrong v. State

24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 384

DecidedDecember 14, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 384 (Armstrong v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. State, 24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 384 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.

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, [385]*385until 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.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

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

JONES, J.

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, [385]*385until 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.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-ohiocirct-1912.