State v. Fisher

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Fisher

763 N.E.2d 1183, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1484, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 526

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 4, 2002

Docket02-201

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 763 N.E.2d 1183 (State v. Fisher) 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 v. Fisher, 763 N.E.2d 1183, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1484, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 526 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 01AP-614. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed January 29, 2002:

“This case is before the court as the result of the filing of a motion to certify a conflict between ouiopinion issued December 20, 2001, and the now reported case of State v. Gilden (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 69 [759 N.E.2d 468], We perceive a clear conflict and therefore certify the following issue:

“Is the practice of a trial court of allowing members of a jury to submit questions to the court and attorneys for possible submission to witnesses per se prejudicial to a criminal defendant?”

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

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

Franklin App. No. 01AP-614. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed January 29, 2002:

“This case is before the court as the result of the filing of a motion to certify a conflict between ouiopinion issued December 20, 2001, and the now reported case of State v. Gilden (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 69 [759 N.E.2d 468], We perceive a clear conflict and therefore certify the following issue:

“Is the practice of a trial court of allowing members of a jury to submit questions to the court and attorneys for possible submission to witnesses per se prejudicial to a criminal defendant?”

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 N.E.2d 1183, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1484, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fisher-ohio-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack