State v. Clay
The State of Ohio v. Clay
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
An examination of the record fails to disclose misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. Certainly there was no affirmative showing by appellant that he was entitled to a new trial. The jury resolved the facts of the case and determined the credibility of the witnesses before it, which was its responsibility. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of that court ( 29 Ohio App. 2d 206 )..
Judgment affirmed.
0 ’Neill, C. J., Heebeet, Cobeigan, Steen, Celebeezze, W. Beown and P. Beown, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 162 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.