Ohio Circuit Courts, 1912

Armstrong v. State

Armstrong v. State
Ohio Circuit Courts · Decided December 14, 1912 · Jones, Smith, Swing
24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 384

Counsel

Rulison <& Rose, for plaintiff in error:, Thos. L. Pogue, Pros. Atty., and Simon Ross, Asst. Pros. Atty., for defendant in error.

Armstrong v. State

Opinion of the Court

JONES, J.

We are of the opinion that the court erred in refusing to hear and determine the motion for a new trial on its merits, and, *385until such hearing by the trial court, this court is without jurisdiction to pass upon alleged errors occurring at the trial.

The plaintiff in error has a statutory right to have his motion determined in the court below. But we hold that he has no constitutional right to be present at the hearing, as same is no part of the trial.

The court below is, therefore, directed to hear and pass upon the motion for a new trial upon the grounds therein stated.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.