Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This can only be appealed after a guilty verdict; a judgment cannot be appealed if made after the prosecution rests, but before the defense begins, rather than after a verdict. In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "judgment of acquittal". [2]
The Ohio Courts of Common Pleas are the trial courts of the state court system of Ohio. The courts of common pleas are the trial courts of general jurisdiction in the state. They are the only trial courts created by the Ohio Constitution (in Article IV, Section 1). The duties of the courts are outlined in Article IV, Section 4.
Under Rule 29, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure the "motion for a judgment of acquittal," or Rule 917, Rules for Courts-Martial the "motion for a finding of not guilty," if the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to support a rational finding of guilty, there is no reason to submit the issue to a jury.
These are published in the official Laws of Ohio and are called "session laws". [2] These in turn have been codified in the Ohio Revised Code. [3] The only official publication of the enactments of the General Assembly is the Laws of Ohio; the Ohio Revised Code is only a reference. [4]
Stalley, [3] a Michigan lawyer relied on the official text of the Uniform Probate Code and failed to check the statute as it had been adopted in Florida. As a result, the lawyer missed a filing deadline on a $3,760,909.49 claim.
The Ohio Revised Code replaced the Ohio General Code in 1953. [4] However the current organization and form of the Ohio Revised Code Title 29 (Crimes) was completely re-written and issued into law by the General Assembly in 1974.
Nolle prosequi, [a] abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue". [3] [4] It is a type of prosecutorial discretion in common law, used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered; [5] it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate courts over tort claims under state common law.