Ruch v. State, No. 18643.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtMARSHALL
Citation111 Ohio St. 580,146 N.E. 67
Docket NumberNo. 18643.
Decision Date23 December 1924
PartiesRUCH v. STATE.

111 Ohio St. 580
146 N.E. 67

RUCH
v.
STATE.

No. 18643.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 23, 1924.


Error to Court of Appeals, Ashland County.

Herman G. Rugh was convicted of perjury, and on error to the Court of Appeals the judgment was affirmed, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.-[By Editorial Staff.]

Plaintiff in error was convicted of perjury in the court of common pleas of Ashland county, the indictment being drawn under section 12842, General Code, and omitting the formal parts, in the following language:

‘That Herman G. Ruch, late of said county, on the 12th day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, at the county of Ashland aforesaid, in a certain proceeding for contempt of court for the violation of an order of the common pleas court of Ashland county, Ohio, in a certain divorce and alimony action then pending in the court of common pleas in said county, wherein Helen Ruch was plaintiff, and Herman G. Ruch was defendant, did appear in said court, which was then and there open for the transaction of business, and then and there was solemnly sworn, in said open court by Cloyd M. Scott, clerk of said court, who then and there was duly empowered and authorized by law, as such clerk, to administer said oath, and so being sworn then and there in said cause and in a matter material thereto, did corruptly and willfully depose and declare certain matters then and there to be fact, to wit, that the date of a certain receipt marked ‘Plaintiff's Exhibit 1’ was correct, that he sold certain household furniture to Rollie Maxheimer for $75; that said furniture was sold before the 10th day of November, whereas in truth and in fact the said Herman G. Ruch did not sell said furniture to the said Rollie Maxheimer on said date or for said sum of money as set forth in said receipt, and whereas said receipt was fraudulently and corruptly executed at a later date for the purpose of defrauding the said Helen Ruch, the said Herman G. Ruch then and there well knowing the said matters so as aforesaid by him deposed and declared to be true, then and there to be false.'

Ruch had theretofore been the defendant in a divorce and alimony suit in which the petition prayed and the court granted a temporary injunction to restrain Ruch from disposing of his property until final hearing of the cause. The order of injunction was made by the court, and a copy of the petition and summons were served upon Ruch personally on November 13, 1923. The divorce case was heard January 5, 1924, and on the same date the court announced that judgment would be rendered for plaintiff, the wife, and that she would also be awarded the household goods referred to and covered by the injunction. The journal entry was prepared, but before being filed and journalized it was found that Ruch had removed the household goods and placed them beyond the process of the court, and thereupon a rule for contempt was made by the court and a writ issued under the signature of the clerk and seal of the court to the sheriff of the county to be served upon Ruch, commanding him to appear forthwith before the judge of the court of common pleas to give testimony, and to show cause why an attachment should not be issued against him for contempt. This writ was duly served upon Ruch, and in obedience thereto he appeared before the court and gave testimony. In this hearing, and as a part of his testimony, all of which was given under oath duly administered by the clerk, Ruch presented an alleged receipt for the sale of the personal property, which receipt was dated November 8, 1923, this being prior to the service of the injunction. He further testified that the goods were in fact sold to Rollie Maxheimer for the sum of $75, and that the sale took place prior to November 10. Ruch did not at that time or at any time question the regularity of the contempt proceedings, did not object to testifying, did not except to any action of the court in that proceeding, and did not prosecute error from the judgment rendered. It was claimed that this testimony was false, and the indictment for perjury followed.

Counsel for defendant urged many technical objections by plea in abatement, motion to quash, and demurrer, all of which objections were overruled. At the trial many other technical objections were urged. It was claimed that the state failed to prove that any contempt proceeding was in fact pending at the time the alleged false testimony was given; that the defendant was an involuntary witness; that his wife testified against him contrary to the provisions of section 13659, General Code; and that incompetent testimony was admitted on behalf of the state, and competent evidence offered by the defendant was rejected. It was also claimed that the corpus delicti was not proved, and that the defendant was not convicted by that degree of proof required in criminal cases. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, judgment was entered thereon, and upon error prosecuted to the Court of Appeals the judgment was affirmed. The cause has been admitted to this court, motion for leave to file petition in error having been sustained.



Syllabus by the Court

Section 13571, General Code, provides that, when an indictment is found the foreman of the grand jury shall indorse on such indictment the words ‘A true bill,’ and subscribe his name as foreman. It is a sufficient compliance with that statutory requirement that the indictment have the words ‘A true bill’ printed thereon, and that the foreman of the grand jury subscribe his name thereto as foreman.

Section 20, article IV, of the Constitution of Ohio, provides that all indictments shall conclude ‘against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio.’ An indictment otherwise valid is not invalidated by reason of a blank space being left between the typewritten matter in the indictment and the concluding words printed thereon in a printed form, even though such concluding words may appear on a different page from such typewritten matter, provided such concluding words appear at the end of the indictment.

An indictment for perjury is sufficient which alleges that a false statement was made by a person ‘who then and there was solemnly sworn,’ even though such indictment does not affirmatively show that the person who made the alleged false statement received the administration of oath as a witness.

Where, in a prosecution for crime, the wife of the defendant is called by the state to testify, and gives testimony material to the indictment, which testimony consists in part of a communication made by the husband to the wife during coverture, not in the known presence or hearing of a third person competent to be a witness, and no objection is made by the defendant or his counsel thereto, and no motion to exclude the testimony, and no request to instruct the jury not to consider such testimony, and the attention of the trial court is not called thereto at any time during the trial, the defendant will be held to have waived the provisions of section 13659, General Code, in his behalf, and the admission of such testimony under such circumstances will not constitute reversible...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • State v. Jones, No. 2008-0525
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 6 Diciembre 2012
    ...presence of the other." Jones's failure to object waived any privilege.11 See Savage, 30 Ohio St.3d at 3, 506 N.E.2d 196; Ruch v. State, 111 Ohio St. 580, 588, 146 N.E. 67 (1924). Based on the foregoing, proposition III is overruled.Page 51 {¶ 184} "Other acts" testimony. In proposition of ......
  • Helms v. State, No. 31140
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 30 Octubre 1968
    ...the validity of the indictment returned has not heretofore been decided in Indiana. However, in the Ohio case of Ruch v. State (1924), 111 Ohio St. 580, 146 N.E. 67, which was decided under a statute similar to Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9-901, supra, it was held that the mere fact that the words 'A T......
  • State v. Michael Childers, 97-LW-2047
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 11 Junio 1997
    ...that requirement is not `so essential as to nullify a conviction otherwise obtained.' Ruch v. State (1924), 111 Ohio St. 580, 586, 146 N.E. 67, 69. * * In State v. Whaley (Nov. 20, 1996), Jackson App. No. 95 CA 772, unreported, we wrote in pertinent part as follows: "In Ruch v. State (1924)......
  • State v. Benjie Whaley, 96-LW-4731
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 20 Noviembre 1996
    ...language is missing from the indictment. Nevertheless, this omission does not rise to the level of plain error. In Ruch v. State (1924), 111 Ohio St. 580, 585, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that the words "against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio" required by the Constitution ar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • State v. Jones, No. 2008-0525
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 6 Diciembre 2012
    ...presence of the other." Jones's failure to object waived any privilege.11 See Savage, 30 Ohio St.3d at 3, 506 N.E.2d 196; Ruch v. State, 111 Ohio St. 580, 588, 146 N.E. 67 (1924). Based on the foregoing, proposition III is overruled.Page 51 {¶ 184} "Other acts" testimony. In proposition of ......
  • Helms v. State, No. 31140
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 30 Octubre 1968
    ...the validity of the indictment returned has not heretofore been decided in Indiana. However, in the Ohio case of Ruch v. State (1924), 111 Ohio St. 580, 146 N.E. 67, which was decided under a statute similar to Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9-901, supra, it was held that the mere fact that the words 'A T......
  • State v. Michael Childers, 97-LW-2047
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 11 Junio 1997
    ...that requirement is not `so essential as to nullify a conviction otherwise obtained.' Ruch v. State (1924), 111 Ohio St. 580, 586, 146 N.E. 67, 69. * * In State v. Whaley (Nov. 20, 1996), Jackson App. No. 95 CA 772, unreported, we wrote in pertinent part as follows: "In Ruch v. State (1924)......
  • State v. Benjie Whaley, 96-LW-4731
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 20 Noviembre 1996
    ...language is missing from the indictment. Nevertheless, this omission does not rise to the level of plain error. In Ruch v. State (1924), 111 Ohio St. 580, 585, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that the words "against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio" required by the Constitution ar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT