State v. Clay
This text of 298 N.E.2d 137 (State v. Clay) 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.
Opinion
An examination of the record fails to disclose misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. Certainly there was no affirmative showing by appellant that he was entitled to a new trial. The jury resolved the facts of the case and determined the credibility of the witnesses before it, which was its responsibility. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of that court (29 Ohio App. 2d 206)..
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
298 N.E.2d 137, 34 Ohio St. 2d 250, 63 Ohio Op. 2d 391, 1973 Ohio LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clay-ohio-1973.