State v. Clay, 34 Ohio St. 2d 250

Per Curiam.

An examination of the record fails to disclose misconduct ‍‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍on the part of the prosecutor. Certainly there was no affirmative showing by appellant that he was entitled ‍‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍to a new trial. The jury resolved the facts of the case and determined the credibility of the ‍‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍witnesses before it, which was its responsibility. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed for the ‍‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍reasons stated in the opinion of that court (29 Ohio App. 2d 206)..

Judgment affirmed.

0 ’Neill, C. J., Heebeet, ‍‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‍Cobeigan, Steen, Celebeezze, W. Beown and P. Beown, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Clay

Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 20, 1973

Citations: 34 Ohio St. 2d 250; 298 N.E.2d 137; 63 Ohio Op. 2d 391; 1973 Ohio LEXIS 377; No. 72-748

Docket Number: No. 72-748

Court Abbreviation: Ohio