Skip to main content

State v. Hamilton

Citations

  • 2017 Ohio 8140

Syllabus

SEARCH AND SEIZURE - DRUGS - AUTOMOBILES - EVIDENCE/WITNESS/TRIAL - CONTINUANCE - JURIES - VOIR DIRE - RESTRAINTS - HEARSAY - TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE - ALLIED OFFENSES - R.C. 2941.25 - SENTENCING: The trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered during the search of an automobile, because defendant was properly detained where a police officer observed a traffic violation, executed a traffic stop, and detained defendant, who was a passenger in the vehicle. The trial court properly overruled defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered during the search of an automobile, because he lacked standing to challenge the search where he did not own the vehicle, had not been driving the vehicle, and had voluntarily exited from the vehicle prior to the search. The trial court properly overruled defendant's motion to dismiss based on the failure to preserve evidence that had been requested where the trial court made the factual determination that the requested video recordings had been corrupted by faulty recording equipment and had never existed in a usable form. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's motion to continue a suppression hearing for the testimony of an absent witness where the trial court determined that the motion to suppress could be overruled on an independent basis not involving the witness's testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's motion for a continuance where the continuance was sought to secure the testimony of a witness, but the movant could not say what the witness would testify to or if the testimony would be different than testimony already provided by other witnesses. Defendant was not prejudiced where he was not present for the voir dire of a juror who had been approached by a third party who had attempted to influence the juror, because counsel was present to protect his rights. Defendant's temporary restraint during his testimon

Judges: Mock

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced 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.