ipl-logo

State Vs Loza Case Study

1303 Words6 Pages

The facts about the Case of State V. Loza This case is talk about the facts and ritual history of this case was set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Loza. The story was started by the event that will happen on January 16, 1991, and the gay who is name was, Jose Trinidad Loza, shot and killed for members of the family of his girlfriend whose name was, Dorothy Jackson. The victims were shot in the head, and they all died while they were sleeping in their home in the Middletown of Ohio. Loza shot Jackson’s mother whose name was Georgia Davis, and her brother, Gray Mullins was another victim. Also, he killed her two sisters, Cheryl (Mullins) Senteno and Jerri Luanna Jackson. Mullins passed on very quickly from his injury, but Davis …show more content…

Hoertt looked the dumpster and watching for something to recognize the person, and he found the letter on it that was marked by Loza, and the arrival address in Butler County. He read the letter, and by the reading he realized that this letter demonstrated that Loza was shooting in Los Angeles and he came to Ohio to stay away from the police in there. After reading the letter, he called the Warren County Sheriff’s Department to report about the action that was happen and he told whatever he met in that day. He realized that he has to collecting data for his revelation to talk everything for the police officer, so he was educated by works who they work in his shop. After that he recognized Loza, and he called the Middletown Police whose name was Roger …show more content…

Passing determination number one charged murder to escape identification and capture, R.C. 2929.04(A)(3); demise detail number two affirmed "course of direct" killings, R.C. 2929.04(A)(5); and capital punishment detail number three claimed kill amid an irritated burglary, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7). Appealing party argued not liable to every one of the charges. Litigant deferred his entitlement to a jury trial and continued to trial under the watchful eye of a three-judge board. Amid round of questioning of the state's last witness, the safeguard moved for a legal mistake on the premise that the expressed had neglected to reveal certain exculpatory confirmation amid discovery. Over the state's protest, the court allowed a legal blunder without partiality. The trial court denied litigant's consequent movement to bar his retrial on twofold danger grounds. After the court denied litigant's pre-trial movement to stifle all announcements and confirmation seized in this matter, a trial by jury initiated on October 21, 1991. Preceding presenting the case to The jury additionally discovered appealing party liable of every single residual particular aside from the R.C. 2929.04(A) (3) particular regarding the irritated killings of Senteno and Jerri

Open Document