History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Radar
47 Ohio St. 3d 112
Ohio
1989
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

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:

ā€œ* * *[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.ā€

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.





Dissenting Opinion

Moyer, C.J.,

dissenting. I would retain jurisdiction and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

H. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Radar
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 13, 1989
Citation: 47 Ohio St. 3d 112
Docket Number: No. 88-1803
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.