State v. Hall
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Hall, 174 Ohio St.3d 65, 2024-Ohio-450.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. HALL, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Hall, 174 Ohio St.3d 65, 2024-Ohio-450.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Daniel and State v. Hacker. (No. 2023-0810―Submitted February 6, 2024―Decided February 13, 2024.) CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Sandusky County, No. S-22-016. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. Daniel, 173 Ohio St.3d 270, 2023-Ohio-4035, 229 N.E.3d 81, and State v. Hacker, 173 Ohio St.3d 219, 2023-Ohio-2535, 229 N.E.3d 38. KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ., concur. FISCHER and BRUNNER, JJ., concur in judgment only for the reasons set forth in their separate opinions in Daniel. DONNELLY, J., dissents. _________________ Beth A. Tischler, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alexis M. Otero, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Jeffrey P. Nunnari, for appellant, Dylan Andrew Hall. _________________
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2024 Ohio 450 (State v. Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.