State v. Smith

789 N.E.2d 234, 99 Ohio St. 3d 140

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Smith. Read the opinion of the Court — 89 Ohio St. 3d 323 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 11, 2003·No. Nos. 2002-1093 and 2002-1220·Published

Opinion

{¶ 1} Propositions of Law Nos. II through VI are dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on Proposition of Law No. I on the authority of State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127, 2003-Ohio-2761, 789 N.E.2d 222.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Renee L. Snow, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur. Cook, J., not participating.

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

{¶ 1} Propositions of Law Nos. II through VI are dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on Proposition of Law No. I on the authority of State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127, 2003-Ohio-2761, 789 N.E.2d 222.

State v. Smith, 789 N.E.2d 234, 99 Ohio St. 3d 140 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

789 N.E.2d 234 (State v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

State v. Fisher

789 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2003)

Opinion

Related