State v. Tuttle

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Tuttle

104 Ohio St. 3d 242

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 8, 2004·No. No. 2003-0573·Published

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Thompson, 102 Ohio St.3d 287, 2004-Ohio-2946, 809 N.E.2d 1134, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of appellant’s [243] remaining assignments of error and further action not inconsistent with State v. Thompson.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jon W. Oebker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Richard Agopian, for appellee. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

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 reversed on the authority of State v. Thompson, 102 Ohio St.3d 287, 2004-Ohio-2946, 809 N.E.2d 1134, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of appellant’s [243] remaining assignments of error and further action not inconsistent with State v. Thompson.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jon W. Oebker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Richard Agopian, for appellee. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

State v. Tuttle, 104 Ohio St. 3d 242 (Ohio 2004).

Pincite

104 Ohio St. 3d 242 (State v. Tuttle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related