concluding that touching of the victim's breast with defendant's hand and kissing the victim's breast with his mouth did not indicate a single, simultaneous incident; rather the acts occurred separately but in close proximity of time during the same extended assault of the victim
Summary of this case from State v. Stoffer2000.
concluding that touching of the victim's breast with defendant's hand and kissing the victim's breast with his mouth did not indicate a single, simultaneous incident; rather the acts occurred separately but in close proximity of time during the same extended assault of the victim
Summary of this case from State v. Stofferconcluding that touching of the victim's breast with defendant's hand and kissing the victim's breast with his mouth did not indicate a single, simultaneous incident; rather the acts occurred separately but in close proximity of time during the same extended assault of the victim
Summary of this case from State v. DegroatFull title:DISCRETIONARY APPEALS NOT ALLOWED
Court:Supreme Court of Ohio
Date published: Jan 1, 2000
Therefore, we do the same. {¶ 13} Whether a trial court properly granted or denied a motion for directed…
Williams v. City of Akron{¶ 8} Whether a trial court properly granted or denied a motion for a directed verdict presents a question of…