State v. Abuzahrieh
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Abuzahrieh, 2003-Ohio-6620.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 82690 STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -VSHAZIM ABUZAHRIEH Defendant-Appellant Date of Announcement of Decision: : : : : : : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION DECEMBER 11, 2003 Character of Proceeding: Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-425072 Judgment: Reversed and remanded. Date of Journalization: Appearances: For Plaintiff-Appellee: WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: MARK B. MAREIN, ESQ. 222 Leader Building 526 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Hazim Abuzahrieh appeals from his conviction following a jury verdict finding him guilty of misdemeanor assault. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand. {¶2} The State indicted defendant and his brother, co- defendant Ihab Abuzahrieh, on one count of felonious assault arising from an altercation in a restaurant lounge. matter proceeded to a joint trial in January 2003. second day of jury voir dire, the court The On the announced its intention to conduct the voir dire and prohibited any further questioning of the jurors by counsel. his own behalf. Defendant testified on While the co-defendant did not testify, the court permitted the State to introduce the co-defendant s alleged statements through the testimony of the investigating officer. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of assault and the court entered judgment and sentenced defendant accordingly. {¶3} Defendant commenced this appeal, which is pending simultaneously with the co-defendant s appeal that presents a common assignment of error, as follows: {¶4} II. The trial court erred in terminating trial counsel s participation in voir dire. {¶5} We have fully addressed this error in State v. Abuzahrieh, Cuyahoga App. No. 82689, 2003-Ohio-6639, wherein it was sustained. Accordingly, we incorporate the reasoning set forth therein as if fully rewritten here and sustain defendant's second assignment of error. {¶6} as moot. {¶7} Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). The judgment of conviction is reversed and the matter is remanded for a new trial on the authority of Abuzahrieh, supra. It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee his costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR. JAMES J. SWEENEY PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. 112, Section 2(A)(1).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
