City of Cleveland v. McNea, 32883
| Decision Date | 25 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 32883,32883 |
| Citation | 48 O.O. 68,158 Ohio St. 138,107 N.E.2d 201 |
| Parties | , 48 O.O. 68 CITY OF CLEVELAND v. McNEA. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Joseph H. Crowley, director of law, Joseph Stearns and Vatro J. Grill, Cleveland, for appellant.
Thomas J. Friel, Cleveland, for appellee.
On March 3, 1951, at about 10 p. m., one William Craighead, while crossing Superior avenue at West 3rd street in Cleveland, was struck and killed by an automobile traveling west at a high rate of speed on Superior avenue.
The driver of the automobile did not stop but sped away, outdistancing and evading a pursuing vehicle traveling at the rate of 60 miles per hour.
Persons in the vicinity were unable to identify the driver of the speeding automobile or ascertain the license number. The automobile was described as a 'Chrysler product,' a 'Chrysler,' a 'DeSoto' or a 'Plymouth.'
The following day at about 10:20 p. m., the defendant saw police officer Skala and another officer at Lorain avenue and West 117th street and informed them that he had an accident at a place he designated which resulted from his failure to make a sharp turn, and that he went up over the tree lawn and struck a water pipe lying there.
He took Skala and the other officer to the place where he said the accident occurred. That location was at 11123 or 11125 Fidelity avenue. The officers observed the water pipe which the defendant said he struck. It was 24 to 30 inches in diameter. The defendant stated that he struck it with the left front of his automobile. There were scratch marks on the pipe and some glass on the tree lawn.
The defendant showed Skala and the other officer his 1941 or 1942 Chrysler sedan. The officers observed that the left front fender, the left bumper and the left headlight were damaged. They then took the defendant to Lorain avenue and West 117th street where he said he would get a cab to get to his work, after which they returned to the location of defendant's automobile to make further inspection.
On this second inspection, the officers observed damages to the front part of the hood and name plate; that there were no license plates for the current year on the automobile; that, on the front bracket, there was a 1947 license plate with some torn metal still attached to the bolts; and that there was no license plate on the rear license plate bracket, but there was freshly torn metal attached to each of the bolts.
Defendant denied having any knowledge of those damages. When asked about the license plates, he stated that he did not know they were missing.
Between midnight and morning of March 5th, officer Schroedel made further inspection of the automobile. He particularly observed dents on the side of the hood and on the chrome strip running through the center of the hood and two or three spots and rubbed marks on the hood, and found several fibers of cloth imbedded or wedged behind the name plate and several strands of hair with roots and flesh still on them above the upper part of the left side of the windshield.
An attorney, who later represented the defendant in court, appeared upon the scene during that inspection. It should be noted that this was before defendant had been charged with any offense.
Upon the trial, it was shown by competent evidence that these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Richey
...St.2d 145, 48 O.O.2d 188, 249 N.E.2d 897 (flight from justice may indicate a consciousness of guilt); Cleveland v. McNea (1952), 158 Ohio St. 138, 142, 48 O.O. 68, 70, 107 N.E.2d 201, 203 (suppression of adverse evidence constitutes a prejudicial circumstance of much weight); State v. Huffm......
-
State v. Campbell
...also asked Roe to provide him with a false alibi. This strongly indicates consciousness of guilt. See Cleveland v. McNea (1952), 158 Ohio St. 138, 142, 48 O.O. 68, 70, 107 N.E.2d 201, 203. Accord 2 McCormick on Evidence (4 Ed.1992) 190, Section 265; 2 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev. 197......
-
Heyduck v. Elder & Johnston Co.
...for a jury to use a series of facts and circumstances as a basis for ultimate findings or inferences. See, also, City of Cleveland v. McNea, 158 Ohio St. 138, 107 N.E.2d 201. Upon the direct and circumstantial evidence and the parallel inferences which could be reasonably and logically draw......
-
Hartenstein v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...that it did not, because of various of its decisions in years gone by, and because of its most recent decision in City of Cleveland v. McNea, 158 Ohio St. 138, 107 N.E.2d 201. It is probable that the Supreme Court meant only to say that, in passing upon the sufficiency of evidence, if one o......