Skip to main content
· 8/4/2022

State v. Staken

Citations

  • 2022 Ohio 2680

Syllabus

Confrontation clause manifest of the evidence. The appellant's right to confront witnesses against him was not violated as a result of the victim and her husband testifying through a videoconference. The victim and her husband's testimony were not used to identify the appellant, but merely to provide context to the investigation. Appellant's conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the trial court was in the best position to determine the credibility of the witness.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rejecting the plaintiffs argument that the ninety day period should run from the date of the appointment of the fiduciary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Laster Mays

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.