# State v. Gross

> Ohio Supreme Court · October 30, 2002 · 97 Ohio St. 3d 121

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6784863

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Gross
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 30, 2002
- **Citations:** 97 Ohio St. 3d 121; 2002 Ohio 5524
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Douglas
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Only, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 179 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/6784863

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that “[i]f sufficient untainted evidence is present in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause, the warrant is valid”
- concluding that it was not reversible error for the trial court to admit a show-up identification that took place “several hours” after the crime

## Opinion text

Douglas, J.,
concurring in judgment only.
{¶ 143} I respectfully concur only in the judgment. Crim.R. 24(F), both before and after- amendment, required that the alternate jurors should have been discharged when the actual sworn jury retired to deliberate. The rule was not followed and this, in and of itself, was error. Given the clear dictates of the rule, nothing more needs to be said.
Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6784863. Public record. Not legal advice.