Case ID: ohio-st-3d_100/html/0247-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lundberg Stratton, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Kittle, Appellant.
    [Cite as State v. Kittle, 100 Ohio St.3d 247, 2003-Ohio-5759.]
    (Nos. 2003-1292 and 2003-1293
    Submitted September 23, 2003
    Decided November 12, 2003.)
   {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is allowed on Proposition of Law No. 3 only.

{¶ 2} The certification of conflict is accepted.

{¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 4} For the reasons expressed in Judge Grady’s dissent in State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473, ¶ 28-39, I respectfully dissent.

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Gamso, Helmick & Hoolahan and Jeffrey M. Gamso, for appellant.