Darnell, In re, 37347
| Decision Date | 02 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 37347,37347 |
| Citation | 182 N.E.2d 321,173 Ohio St. 335 |
| Parties | , 19 O.O.2d 269 In re DARNELL. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The provisions of Section 2151.35(E), Revised Code, relating to the hearing and commitment of a delinquent child without an indictment or a jury trial are not violative of Section 5 or 10 of Article I of the Constitution of Ohio.
The petitioner Darnell, 17 years of age, filed this habeas corpus action originally in the Court of Appeals for the purpose of obtaining his release from custody, on the ground that he had been illegally tried, convicted and sentenced to the Ohio State Reformatory by the Juvenile Court of Hamilton County for a felony under the provisions of Section 2151.35(E), Revised Code, without a presentment or an indictment by a grand jury and without a trial by a petit jury.
The Court of Appeals allowed the writ and released the petitioner after holding that the provisions of Section 2151.35(E), Revised Code, are violative of the provisions of Sections 5 and 10 of Article I of the Constitution of Ohio.
An appeal as of right has been perfected to this court by the respondents.
C. Watson Hover, Pros. Atty., and Robert K. Sachs, Cincinnati, for appellant, Benjamin S. Swartz, Judge of Juvenile Court of Hamilton County.
Robert S. Kraft, Cincinnati, for appellee.
Section 2151.35(E), Revised Code, reads in part as follows:
'If the court finds that the child is a juvenile traffic offender or is delinquent, neglected, or dependent, it may by order entered proceed as follows:
* * *
* * *
'(E) Commit a male child over sixteen years of age who has committed an act which if committed by an adult would be a felony to the Ohio State Reformatory * * *.'
Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution of Ohio reads in part that 'no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury' and shall be allowed 'a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.' And Section 5 contains the general provision that 'the right of trial by jury shall be inviolate.'
Was the petitioner tried, convicted and sentenced by the Juvenile Court for a crime?
The Court of Appeals so held in the instant action in habeas corpus. That court held also that the offense with which the petitioner was charged is immaterial. This court finds itself unable to accept either of these conclusions. The petitioner was charged with being a delinquent, and he was found to be a delinquent. Incidentally he was found to have committed the act of stabbing with intent to kill, but this was held to constitute delinquency instead of a felony as it would have been if committed by an 'adult' 18 or more years of age instead of a 'delinquent child' under 18, as defined by the statute. He was not convicted. Nor was he sentenced but was committed to the reformatory.
This is consistent with the further provision of Section 2151.35, Revised Code, as follows:
That this is not novel is shown by the following comment in the case of Prescott v. State, 19 Ohio St. 184, in which a minor 14 years of age burned a barn but was neither indicted nor tried by a jury:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agler, In re
...of Ohio. (Cope v. Campbell, 175 Ohio St. 475, 196 N.E.2d 457, except the second paragraph of the syllabus thereof, and In re Darnell, 173 Ohio St. 335, 182 N.E.2d 321, approved and 3. Any adjudication of delinquency must he supported by clear and convincing evidence. On June 16, 1967, Donal......
-
Wilson v. Coughlin
...many federal decisions seem to reach the opposite conclusion. See Long v. Langlois, 93 R.I. 23, 170 A.2d 618 (1961); In re Darnell, 173 Ohio St. 335, 182 N.E.2d 321 (1962); Cope v. Campbell, 175 Ohio St. 475, 196 N.E.2d 457 (1964); Trimble v. Stone, 187 F.Supp. 483 (D.C.1960); Arkadiele v. ......
-
Agler, In re
...at the age of majority. The institution to which they are committed is a school, not a prison; * * *.' In In re Darnell, 173 Ohio St. 335, at page 336, 182 N.E.2d 321, at page 322, the Supreme Court of Ohio in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Weygandt '* * * The petitioner was c......
-
Baker, In re
...of assignment of error number two. Section 2151.35(E) has been held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Ohio in In re Darnell, 173 Ohio St. 335, 182 N.E.2d 321, and in Cope v. Campbell, Sheriff, 175 Ohio St. 475, 196 N.E.2d Baker was over eighteen when he had his hearing in the Juv......