State v. Friess
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 3409
Syllabus
Per Mayle, J., the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of appellant's consciousness of guilt or failing to declare a mistrial. Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, so trial court did not err by denying appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion. Appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- Twenty-First Amendment does not provide an exception to anti-trust laws
- applying the two-part test to New York’s liquor pricing system
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mayle
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.