State v. Crager

916 N.E.2d 1076, 123 Ohio St. 3d 1497
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Crager. Read the opinion of the Court — 116 Ohio St. 3d 369
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 18, 2009·No. 2006-0294 and 2006-0298·Published

Opinion

Marion App. No. 9-04-54, 164 Ohio App.3d 816, 2005-Ohio-6868.

On motion for reconsideration. The parties are to brief the issue of the impact of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009), _ U.S. _, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314, on this court’s holding in paragraph two of the syllabus in State v. Crager, 116 Ohio St.3d 369, 2007-Ohio-6840, 879 N.E.2d 745. The parties shall simultaneously file their briefs within 20 days of the date of this entry, and reply briefs shall be filed ten days thereafter.

Pfeifer and Kline, JJ., dissent. Roger L. Kline, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for Cupp, J.

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

State v. Crager, 916 N.E.2d 1076, 123 Ohio St. 3d 1497 (Ohio 2009).

916 N.E.2d 1076 (State v. Crager) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court, 2009)
State v. Crager
2007 Ohio 6840 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
State v. Crager
844 N.E.2d 390 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)