Gee v. State
|13 June 1899
|GEE v. STATE. STATE v. SLAVENS.
|Ohio Supreme Court
Error to circuit court, Cuyahoga county.
Exceptions from court of common pleas, Scioto county.
In the first case, one Gee was convicted in the police court of the city of Cleveland upon an information which charged him with unlawfully, negligently, and willfully depriving his illegitimate child of necessary food, clothing, and shelter. Upon the trial of the issues joined by the plea of not guilty, the record of a civil proceeding under the bastardy act was, against the objection of defendant, admitted to establish his paternity of the child, which was alleged to have been neglected by him. The sentence of the police court was affirmed by the court of common pleas and the circuit court, and this petition in error is for the reversal of the judgments of the three courts for the admission of said evidence. Reversed.
In the second case, one Slavens was placed on trial in the common pleas court of Scioto county upon an indictment charging him with neglecting and refusing to support his illegitimate child. Upon the trial the prosecuting attorney offered in evidence the record in a proceeding under the bastardy act instituted upon the complaint of the mother, in which Slavens was adjudged to be the reputed father of the child. This record was excluded by the court on objection by the defendant's counsel, and the prosecuting attorney excepted. The cause is before us upon that exception. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
On the trial of the issues joined by a plea of not guilty to an information or an indictment charging the defendant with willfully and negligently failing to support his illegitimate child, the record of a bastardy proceeding instituted by the mother of the child, in which the defendant was adjudged to be its reputed father, is not admissible in evidence.
T. J Ross, for plaintiff in error Gee.
Albert T. Holmes, for the State.
Henry Bannon, for the State.
Noah J. Dever, for defendant Slavens.
The record offered is not competent, under the general rule that in a criminal proceeding the record of a civil action cannot be introduced to establish the facts on which it was rendered. The judgments offered followed verdicts which might have been lawfully returned upon a mere preponderance of evidence. A higher degree of evidence was required to convict under the indictment...
To continue readingRequest your trial
- City of Greensburg v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
City of Greensburg v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company
... ... recovery of a money judgment only, where the amount in ... controversy, exclusive of costs, does not exceed thirty-five ... hundred dollars. * * * The Appellate Court shall not have ... jurisdiction of any case where the constitutionality of a ... statute, federal or state, or the validity of an ordinance of ... a municipal corporation is in question and such question is ... duly presented." § 1336 Burns 1894, § 6562a ... Horner 1897 ... In the ... original act creating the Appellate Court, of which the above ... mentioned statute of 1893 ... ...
- Gee v. State