State v. Kittle

Ohio Supreme Court November 12, 2003

State v. Kittle, 100 Ohio St. 3d 247 (Ohio 2003)

797 N.E.2d 1283

Connor, Donnell, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

Opinion of the Court

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is allowed on Proposition of Law No. 3 only.

{¶ 2} The certification of conflict is accepted.

{¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

Dissenting Opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 4} For the reasons expressed in Judge Grady’s dissent in State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473, ¶ 28-39, I respectfully dissent.

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Gamso, Helmick & Hoolahan and Jeffrey M. Gamso, for appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name: The State of Ohio v. Kittle
Status: Published