Opinion

State v. [J.S.

  • 97 N.E.3d 790
  • 2017 Ohio 7613
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Sep 14, 2017
Status
Published
Author
Tyack
On the bench
Horton, Tyack
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

TYACK, P.J., dissenting.

{¶ 16} I respectfully dissent.

{¶ 17} I believe the trial court judge would have been acting within her discretion either way she resolved this case. Having acted within her discretion, I believe her decision should be affirmed on appeal.

{¶ 18} The judge was aware that police officers benefit from a full range of information when investigating a case and when making an arrest. The fact that a person who is being investigated or arrested has a past offense of violence can be significant.

{¶ 19} A judge who is setting bond in arraignment court can be affected by the fact an accused has a prior offense of violence in his or her history. This information is not always immediately available at arraignment if the records have been sealed, either for issue of law or for reasons related to bureaucratic inertia.

{¶ 20} I can appreciate the reasoning of the majority of this panel, but I think the evaluation and weighing of evidence in the trial court should be respected in this case. I also note that the Franklin County Municipal Court handles an incredible number

of cases. We, as an appellate court, with a much more limited docket should be careful in reaching our decision not to burden our municipal court judges with hearings and procedures which make a difficult docket impossible to manage.

{¶ 21} Again, I respectfully dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.