State v. Hanners

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 4114

Syllabus

Appellant was not required to consent to having the magistrate preside over his criminal jury trial, because she proceeded in her capacity as an acting judge, not as a magistrate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for an acquittal based on an improper statement by the prosecutor during closing argument. Any potential prejudice was removed as a result of the trial court's actions in response to the error. Lastly, although disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(1) is a lesser included offense of menacing, the trial court did not err in refusing to give a jury instruction for the lesser included offense based on the facts presented at trial. Judgment affirmed.