Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

STATE v. WRIGHT, 135 Ohio St. 187 (1939)

STATE OF Ohio, APPELLANT v. WRIGHT, APPELLEE., 20 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio 1939)

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Date
1939-03-22
Topic
general

STATE v. WRIGHT, 135 Ohio St. 187 (1939) 20 N.E.2d 229 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT v. WRIGHT, APPELLEE. No. 27317Supreme Court of Ohio. Decided March 22, 1939.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. WRIGHT, 135 Ohio St. 187 (1939). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. WRIGHT,135 Ohio St. 187(1939)
20 N.E.2d 229
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT v. WRIGHT, APPELLEE.
No. 27317
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided March 22, 1939.
Appeal — Granting new trial not final order or judgment, when— Amended Section 12223-2, General Code, unconstitutional.
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals of Franklin county.
Mr. Ralph J. Bartlett, prosecuting attorney,Mr. Henry L.HoldenandMr. Edmund B. Paxton, for appellant.Mr. Arvin J. AlexanderandMr. Robert E. Gibbs, for appellee.
BY THE COURT.
Harold Wright was found guilty by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county, Division of Domestic Relations, of being the father of a child by an unmarried female. He filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The latter was overruled but the motion for new trial was sustained.

The state appealed on questions of law to the CourtPage 188of Appeals, which court overruled a motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting a motion for new trial, and that Section 12223-2, General Code (117 Ohio Laws, 615), was constitutional, and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

Finding its judgment in conflict with that of the Court of Appeals of the First Appellate District inFultonv.Madlener,57 Ohio App. 345,14 N.E.2d 27, and also with a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Appellate District, the judges of the Court of Appeals of the Second Appellate District certified the record to this court for review and final determination.

This court having held the questioned provision of amended Section 12223-2, General Code, unconstitutional in the case ofHoffmanv.Knollman, ante, 170, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the appeal and for further proceedings in accordance with law.Judgment reversed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., DAY, ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAMS, MYERS, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.