State v. Pelfrey

Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided 2007-02-07

Cited by 171 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

O’Donnell, J., dissenting. {¶ 16} Pelfrey knew the nature of the indictment against him, which indicated that the record he had tampered with was a government record. {¶ 17} The verdict form here referred to the offense of tampering with records, “as charged in the indictment.” No confusion existed regarding this matter during trial, and Pelfrey never objected when the trial court submitte…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.