Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Ohio Supreme Court, 2003

State v. Kittle

State v. Kittle
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 12, 2003 · Connor, Donnell, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
100 Ohio St. 3d 247; 797 N.E.2d 1283

State v. Kittle

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.

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

↑