State v. Espinoza-Soriano
Citations
- 2020 Ohio 139
Syllabus
No speedy-trial violation where time was tolled, pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(E) and (H), by parties' tentative agreement that defendant would enter diversion program. Defendant was bound by trial counsel's representations that attorney \will see what [she] can get\ by way of an agreement. Although no agreement was reached, the extension of time beyond the speedy-trial timetable was reasonable and necessary and therefore tolled the running of the clock.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that an evidentiary ruling is not subjectto reversal on appeal unless the error was prejudicial, i.e., it affected the outcome of trial
- “Washington courts have, for years, firmly presumed that jurors follow the court’s instructions.”
- RCW 7.70.080 is unconstitutional where it conflicts with ER 408, prohibiting the admission of evidence of settlements
- “The collateral source rule ensures that the fact finder will not reduce the plaintiff’s award because the plaintiff has received compensation from a third party.” (citing Mazon, 158 Wn.2d at 452)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Osowik
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.