Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Ohio App. 3d 405

575 N.E.2d 1179

State v. Pershin

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 30, 1988

This page is marked noindex.

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1988-11-30

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1993

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-11-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Baird, Presiding Judge,

¶1 concurring.

¶2 When the prosecutor asked the rhetorical question “and how would you like to be in that position?”, the defendant entered a general objection, after which the prosecution apparently moved on to other areas of argument. In the absence of a motion for mistrial, or at least a motion for a curative instruction, there is nothing to review, as the defendant was afforded everything that he could have expected to derive from his general objection.

¶3 On that basis, I would concur that the first assignment of error should be overruled, and I also concur with the remaining portions of the majority opinion.

/62/ohioapp3d/405 · .json · Public domain