From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

The State of Ohio v. Wetzel

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Aug 13, 1963
194 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963)

Opinion

No. 7414

Decided August 13, 1963.

Appeal — Overruling motion to suppress evidence — Not final, appealable order.

The overruling of a motion to suppress evidence is not a final, appealable order.

APPEAL: Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

ON MOTION to dismiss.

Mr. John C. Young, city attorney, Mr. Howard P. Lowe and Mr. Gordon L. Sroufe, for appellee.

Mr. James C. Britt, Mr. Willis E. Wolfe, Jr., and Mr. Joseph G. Rotondo, for appellant.


The state of Ohio has filed a motion asking for a dismissal of this appeal for the reason that the order for which the defendant, appellant herein, has attempted to appeal is not a final or appealable order, and that jurisdiction has not as yet been conferred on this court. The appeal has been taken from the overruling of a motion to suppress evidence.

The defendant-appellant has not answered the motion, but it appears that the order appealed from is not a final or appealable order. See Section 2953.02 of the Revised Code and State v. Holbrook, 105 Ohio App. 414.

The motion to dismiss will be, and hereby is, sustained, and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.

Motion sustained.

BRYANT and TROOP, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

The State of Ohio v. Wetzel

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Aug 13, 1963
194 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963)
Case details for

The State of Ohio v. Wetzel

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE v. WETZEL, APPELLANT

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio

Date published: Aug 13, 1963

Citations

194 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963)
194 N.E.2d 911

Citing Cases

State v. Ricciardi

We begin our discussion by noting that historically the overruling of a motion to suppress evidence in a…

State v. Crawley

However, neither the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment based upon an allegedly improper…