Popular Posts
-
Dawn Dixon, accused of stealing a minivan with a 4-year-old child inside, was hospitalized for unknown reasons while charges were pending ag...
-
NKY.com is reporting about the floating restaurant in Covington last night. Ruby's Riverfront restaurant floated away as a result of th...
-
USA Today is reporting that Andrew Kelley's bond was denied on Friday. Kelley is being held for murder charges related to the shooting d...
-
Kimball Perry reports that a University of Cincinnati student was sentenced to jail for five years as a result of a disturbing choking incid...
-
Trustee Carl Walker was indicted on March 4, 2011 for various crimes, relating to contracts he entered into with his son's company on be...
-
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals of Ohio handed down another opinion regarding allied offenses . We previously explained allied offense...
-
We just couldn't help but mention Charlie Sheen's video rantings . He's wearing a Cincinnati Reds shirt (Ohio), although there...
-
Tiffani Calise, charged with murdering an infant that she was babysitting, is awaiting trial in jail. She is pregnant, and requested a mate...
-
The Enquirer reports that the Butler County OVI Task Force will conduct a checkpoint in Middletown tonight on Verity Parkway. As always, ma...
-
This blog will follow criminal law developments in Ohio. We will reference recent court decisions, as well as popular news articles related...
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
State v. Ignat; right to a speedy trial
Pursuant to R.C. 2945.71, defendants in Ohio have a right to a trial within 45 days. The issue in State v. Ignat, at the 12th District Court of Appeals, was whether the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated where the trial commenced 61 countable days after the arrest but where the state argued good cause for the delay. In that case, the state admitted that the trial did not commence until 61 days after her arrest (excluding a few days because of a waiver of the right to a speedy trial). The defendant claimed that the 61 days exceeded the statutory 45 day limit and requested dismissal of the case. The state argued that its delay was reasonable, because the arresting officer suffered a heart attack and was unable to testify at an earlier scheduled trial date. The Court of Appeals agreed, and affirmed the district court's conviction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment