Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 384

Armstrong v. State

Ohio Circuit Courts

Decided December 14, 1912

Ohio Circuit Courts · decided 1912-12-14

<p>CRIMINAL LAW — NEW TRIAL.</p> <p>•Accused Can Not Demand that He be Present at the Hearing of Motion for New Trial as Constitutional Right.</p> <p>The hearing of a motion for a new trial is not a part of the trial; hence the presence at the hearing of such motion of one convicted of a crime is mot necessary and it is error for the trial judge to refuse to hear and determine same on account of accused’s absence.</p>

Decided 1912-12-14

JONES, J.

¶1We 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.

¶2The 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.

¶3The 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.
/24/ohioccdec/384 · .json · Public domain