City of Cincinnati v. Epperson
| Decision Date | 03 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-297,68-297 |
| Citation | 253 N.E.2d 785,49 O.O.2d 342,20 Ohio St.2d 59 |
| Parties | , 49 O.O.2d 342 CITY OF CINCINNATI, Appellee, v. EPPERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In a criminal case, if requested special instructions to the jury are correct, pertinent and timely presented, they must be included, at least in substance, in the general charge. (State v. Barron, 170 Ohio St. 267, 164 N.E.2d 409, followed.)
2. Where a person is charged with violating a city ordinance prohibiting the carrying of passengers for compensation in a vehicle not licensed for such purpose under the city's ordinances, and the defense is that the compensation was accepted only for carrying packages and not passengers, and there is evidence supporting that defense, it is error for the trial court, upon request, to refuse to instruct the jury, at least in substance, that the delivery of packages for compensation is not prohibited and that there is no violation if compensation is received for that latter purpose only.
3. The failure by the trial court in a criminal case to answer a question of law relating to a defense presented, which is submitted to the court by the jury after they had retired to deliberate, is error prejudicial to defendant's substantial rights.
Appellant, Virgil Epperson, was charged in Municipal Court with violating Section 407.97 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Cincinnati, which reads:
'The acceptance of passengers or the offer to accept passengers for compensation by the operator of any vehicle other than a public vehicle duly licensed under and operating in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Ordinances of the city of Cincinnati or motor buses or trackless trolleys operating under proper authority is hereby prohibited.'
Appellant was tried before a jury. At the trial, two city employees, one of whom was a police officer, testified that appellant transported them and their groceries from a grocery store to a residence for a charge of 50 cents. The record discloses that, at the time of picking up the two persons, the appellant made the following statement to them:
The jury found appellant guilty as charged and he was sentenced to 30 days in the workhouse and fined $100. In addition, appellant's automobile was confiscated and sold and he was ordered to pay court costs of $425.
The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The cause is before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
William A. McClain, City Solicitor, Ralph E. Cors and William B. Singer, Cincinnati, for appellee.
Paul H. Tobias, Cinncinnati, and Mitchell B. Goldberg, Dayton, for appellant.
Two questions of law presented by appellant in this appeal command our attention.
In respect to the first question of law, appellant contends that the trial court had 'a mandatory duty to give instructions to the jury with respect to defendant's theory of defense * * * and its failure to give such instructions when requested by the defendant * * * constitutes prejudicial error.'
Two of the instructions requested read as follows:
(1)
(2) 'If you find that the agreement between Epperson and the police officer was that the compensation of 50c was to be paid solely for carrying packages, and that the money was accepted solely for the service of carrying packages, then you must acquit Epperson and return a verdict of not guilty.'
The trial court refused to give either of these requested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Michael v. Haley
... ... in downtown Cincinnati, six occurred on weekday afternoons, ... all of the businesses were located at street level, ... citing Cincinnati v. Epperson (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d ... 59, 49 O.O2d 342, 253 N.E.2d 785. However, the trial court is ... ...
-
State v. Braxton
...in the general charge. State v. McCarthy (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 589, 593, 605 N.E.2d 911, 913-914; Cincinnati v. Epperson (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 59, 49 O.O.2d 342, 253 N.E.2d 785, paragraph one of the In the present case, appellant requested the court to charge the jury on the lesser included......
-
State v. Bertold J. Pembaur
... ... Garry, 420 Hamilton County Court House, Court and ... Main Streets, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for Plaintiff-Appellee ... Messrs ... Gold, Rotatori, Messerman ... to a public room, the city streets, or even an automobile, ... the general rule may be stated in even more restrictive ... 2921.01(L), citing City of Cincinnati v. Epperson ... (1969), 20 Ohio St. 2d 59, 253 N.E.2d 785. Further, argues ... the defendant, the ... ...
-
State v. Norman
...in substance, in the general charge. State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266, 269, 421 N.E.2d 157 (1981), citing Cincinnati v. Epperson, 20 Ohio St.2d 59, 253 N.E.2d 785 (1969), paragraph one of the syllabus. However, “The trial court need not give a proposed instruction in the precise language ......