holding that a trial judge was not “required to request the assignment of a visiting judge pursuant to R.C. 1901.10” because “assignment of such visiting judges is primarily and constitutionally within the discretion of the Chief Justice of this court”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a trial judge was not “required to request the assignment of a visiting judge pursuant to R.C. 1901.10” because “assignment of such visiting judges is primarily and constitutionally within the discretion of the Chief Justice of this court”
- holding that it was reasonable for the trial court to grant a continuance beyond the ninety-day speedy trial limit based in part on the fact that the arresting officer was to be on vacation on the originally scheduled trial date
- finding that delay caused by an arresting officer's unavailability due to the officer's vacation was reasonable and tolled the speedy trial time period
- holding that reasonableness should be determined on a case-by-case basis
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Douglas, J.,
concurring. While I concur in the analysis and opinion of the majority, I feel compelled to address an issue overlooked by the majority. Although the majority correctly reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstates appellee’s conviction, I believe the better procedure to be a reinstatement of the conviction and remand to the trial court for possible further proceedings, consistent with our decision in State v. McGettrick (1987), 31 Ohio St. 3d 138 , 31 OBR 296, 509 N.E. 2d 378 . I believe the latter procedure more fully protects the rights of the parties, and additionally notifies the parties that we are aware that appellee died during the course of the appeal process.
Locher and H. Brown, JJ., concur in the foregoing concurring opinion.