# State v. Saffell

> Ohio Supreme Court · February 3, 1988 · 35 Ohio St. 3d 90

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760085

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Saffell
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 3, 1988
- **Citations:** 35 Ohio St. 3d 90; 518 N.E.2d 934; 1988 Ohio LEXIS 121
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Douglas
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 135 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760085

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- noting court would be out of town during earliest available date after witness's availability

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760085. Public record. Not legal advice.