Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

172 Ohio App. 3d 512

State v. Beebe

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 18, 2007

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 2007-07-18

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2021

8 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-07-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Kline, J.,

¶1dissenting in part.

¶2{¶ 14} I respectfully dissent as to the fourth assignment of error.

¶3{¶ 15} The majority finds this alleged error moot. However, I disagree because if the state failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove an element of the offense, then double jeopardy would prevent a retrial.

¶4{¶ 16} Therefore, I would address the alleged error and find Beebe’s argument lacks merit. Consequently, I would overrule Beebe’s fourth assignment of error.

¶5{¶ 17} Thus, I dissent in part.

/172/ohioapp3d/512 · .json · Public domain