State v. Radar

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Radar

548 N.E.2d 210, 47 Ohio St. 3d 112, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 306

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 13, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1803

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 548 N.E.2d 210 (State v. Radar) 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. Radar, 548 N.E.2d 210, 47 Ohio St. 3d 112, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 306 (Ohio 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

This cause came before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District in State v. Howell (1981), 5 Ohio App. 3d 92, 5 OBR 206, 449 N.E. 2d 523, upon the following question:

“* * *[W]hether a judgment may be reversed and the cause remanded when a trial court errs in granting a motion to amend the indictment to less than bulk amount under R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), where the defendant plead [sic] no contest to a charge of aggravated trafficking, and the evidence shows possession of more than bulk amount.”

We find that the judgments of the courts of appeals do not conflict on the certified question. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. State v. Palider (1987), 33 Ohio St. 3d 68, 514 N.E. 2d 873; Cook v. Mayfield (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 44, 523 N.E. 2d 502; Hays v. St. Elizabeth Hosp. Medical Ctr. (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 60, 526 N.E. 2d 307.

Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and H. Brown, J., dissent.

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

This cause came before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District in State v. Howell (1981), 5 Ohio App. 3d 92, 5 OBR 206, 449 N.E. 2d 523, upon the following question:

“* * *[W]hether a judgment may be reversed and the cause remanded when a trial court errs in granting a motion to amend the indictment to less than bulk amount under R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), where the defendant plead [sic] no contest to a charge of aggravated trafficking, and the evidence shows possession of more than bulk amount.”

We find that the judgments of the courts of appeals do not conflict on the certified question. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. State v. Palider (1987), 33 Ohio St. 3d 68, 514 N.E. 2d 873; Cook v. Mayfield (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 44, 523 N.E. 2d 502; Hays v. St. Elizabeth Hosp. Medical Ctr. (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 60, 526 N.E. 2d 307.

Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and H. Brown, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 N.E.2d 210, 47 Ohio St. 3d 112, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-radar-ohio-1989.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack