History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Harman
67 Ohio St. 3d 30
Ohio
1993
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

On appeal the parties have filed memoranda supporting and opposing jurisdiction. Since this is an appeal as of right under Section 2(B)(2)(a)(i), Article IV, Ohio Constitution, such memoranda are unnecessary. We treat them as briefs on the merits.

Reviewing the decision of the court of appeals on appeal from the conviction, we find that the judge writing the “majority” opinion voted to reverse for denial of the right to confront witnesses and insufficiency of the evidence, one judge concurred only on the confrontation issue, and one judge dissented from the majority opinion, but concurred in the concurring opinion. Therefore, appellant’s conviction was reversed for denial of the right to confront witnesses and not for *31insufficiency of the evidence. Accordingly, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not implicated pursuant to Burks v. United States (1978), 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1, and the court of appeals correctly denied the writ.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Harman
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 4, 1993
Citation: 67 Ohio St. 3d 30
Docket Number: No. 92-1112
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.