holding that Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(B) “commands that unless unable to do so, the judge who presided at a criminal trial must also preside at post-conviction proceedings”
How later courts described this case
- holding that Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(B) “commands that unless unable to do so, the judge who presided at a criminal trial must also preside at post-conviction proceedings”
- pointing out that even where the admission of lay opinion testimony was not required, this does not mean the admission of such testimony was an abuse of discretion
- suggesting that a ―magazine must be looked at as a whole and not as a series of ‗works‘ resulting in a ‗volume‘‖ (citation omitted)
- “It is a generally accepted principle that a lay witness may testify to the speed of an automobile * * * when the lay witness has made personal observations of the speed[.]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Douglas, J.,
concurring in judgment. I concur in the judgment and paragraphs two, three, four and five of the syllabus. I express concern that paragraph one of the syllabus is restrictive to the point that it will make it difficult — if not impossible — for cities to deal, in any meaningful way, with the ever-increasing problem of obscenity.