State v. McAlmont

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. McAlmont

976 N.E.2d 898, 133 Ohio St. 3d 162

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 27, 2012·No. No. 2011-0065·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. Gunnell, 132 Ohio St.3d 442, 2012-Ohio-3236, 973 N.E.2d 243.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lanzinger, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur. D. Andrew Wilson, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew Picek, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Murr, Compton, Claypool & Macbeth and Charles M. Blue, for appellee. Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in State v. Gunnell, 132 Ohio St.3d 442, 2012-Ohio-3236, 973 N.E.2d 243.

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

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. Gunnell, 132 Ohio St.3d 442, 2012-Ohio-3236, 973 N.E.2d 243.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lanzinger, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur. D. Andrew Wilson, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew Picek, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Murr, Compton, Claypool & Macbeth and Charles M. Blue, for appellee. Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in State v. Gunnell, 132 Ohio St.3d 442, 2012-Ohio-3236, 973 N.E.2d 243.

State v. McAlmont, 976 N.E.2d 898, 133 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio 2012).

Pincite

976 N.E.2d 898 (State v. McAlmont) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related