State ex rel. Kynard v. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Kynard v. Court of Common Pleas

405 N.E.2d 719, 62 Ohio St. 2d 308, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 356, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 746

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 11, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1630

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 405 N.E.2d 719 (State ex rel. Kynard v. Court of Common Pleas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Kynard v. Court of Common Pleas, 405 N.E.2d 719, 62 Ohio St. 2d 308, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 356, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 746 (Ohio 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A writ of prohibition will issue when a court seeks to exercise judicial power not authorized by law. State, ex rel. Adler, v. Court (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 1; State, ex rel. Wall, v. Grossman (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 4.

Here, there is no question that the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County is authorized to hear a case charging aggravated murder. Appellant’s contentions are to the sufficiency of the indictment and not to the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear and determine the cause. Alleged irregularities in the proceedings of the grand jury returning an indictment do not deprive the lower court of jurisdiction to proceed thereunder. Appellant’s remedy is by way of appeal. Chapman v. Jago (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 51; Silliman v. Court (1933), 126 Ohio St. 338.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint for a writ of prohibition is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

A writ of prohibition will issue when a court seeks to exercise judicial power not authorized by law. State, ex rel. Adler, v. Court (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 1; State, ex rel. Wall, v. Grossman (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 4.

Here, there is no question that the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County is authorized to hear a case charging aggravated murder. Appellant’s contentions are to the sufficiency of the indictment and not to the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear and determine the cause. Alleged irregularities in the proceedings of the grand jury returning an indictment do not deprive the lower court of jurisdiction to proceed thereunder. Appellant’s remedy is by way of appeal. Chapman v. Jago (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 51; Silliman v. Court (1933), 126 Ohio St. 338.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint for a writ of prohibition is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 N.E.2d 719, 62 Ohio St. 2d 308, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 356, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-kynard-v-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack