 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lewis9/5/1990
the trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in admitting evidence obtained by a constitutionally unlawful search of appellant, we hold that there was no other lawfully admitted evidence to support the verdict of the jury. In the absence of such evidence, we hold that the verdict of the jury would be manifestly against the weight of the evidence; therefore, the verdict finding appellant guilty of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon is reversed.
Judgment reversed and final judgment entered for appellant.
Judgment accordingly.
CHRISTLEY, P.J., concurs.
FORD, J., concurs with concurring opinion.
JOHN J. LYNCH, J., retired, of the Seventh Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
FORD, Judge, concurring.
While I concur with the majority in its treatment of the first assignment of error, I would embellish its analysis with the observation that, based on the state of the record before us, there was no valid probable cause existing at the specific time in question to justify a search of the vehicle which led to the discovery of the firearm in question. As the Ohio Supreme Court suggested in State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59, 11 OBR 250, 463 N.E.2d 1237, there are some discernible limitations to search exercises in lawful detention situations whether measured against the "specific and articulable facts" standard of Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed. 2d 889, 906, 44 O.O.2d 383, 393; the thrust of Brown v. Texas (1979), 443 U.S. 47, 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 362; the Fourth Amendment; or Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
|