State v. Arrington
| Decision Date | 19 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 39108,39108 |
| Citation | 207 N.E.2d 557,2 Ohio St.2d 172 |
| Parties | , 31 O.O.2d 322 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. ARRINGTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
The defendant, Joseph Arrington, was indicted for malicious entry of a financial institution with intent to commit a felony, for burglary of a bank, for attempting to force entrance into a bank vault, and for unlawful possession of burglar tools. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty.
After indictment and arraignment, defendant requested a private personal interview with the chief of police. During that interview, in which the prosecuting attorney also participated, defendant voluntarily made oral confessions implicating his accomplices for the reason that he believed that they had informed the police as to his whereabouts, and that he wanted to 'get even.' Defendant's counsel of record was not present when the confession were made. These confessions were introduced at the trial and were allowed to be considered by the jury over objection of defendant's counsel.
Defendant was found guilty on all four counts of the indictment and sentenced.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
The cause is now in this court for review on an appeal as of right and upon the allowance of a motion for leave to appeal.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., Dennis J. McGuire and Charles W. Fleming, Cleveland, for appellee.
Jerry Milano, Cleveland, for appellant.
Defendant contends that his constitutional rights have been invaded by permitting the confessions to be introduced in evidence and considered by the jury, and that the prosecutor was in error in not notifying defendant's counsel of the proposed interrogation.
The record discloses that defendant sought the interviews at which the confessions were voluntarily made; that he did not request counsel at the time; and that he was not refused the assistance of counsel.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on authority of State v. McLeod, 1 Ohio St.2d 60, 203 N.E.2d 349.
Judgment affirmed.
I concur in the judgment but not on authority of State v. McLeod, 1 Ohio St.2d 60, 203 N.E.2d 349, in which case I dissented.
The facts in this case differ materially from those in Escobedo v. State of Illinois (1964), 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, Massiah v. United States (1964), 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Price
... ... because I feel it's the only protection, his only ... protection ... " ... Q. Well, Mr. Segal, you state that that is your opinion? ... " ... A. My view which guides my action. I don't offer that, ... you know, as law or evidence. It is what ... (1969); People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 ... Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361 (1965); State v ... Arrington, 2 Ohio St. 2d 172, 207 N.E.2d 557 ... --------- ... ...
-
Arrington v. Maxwell
...conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County and subsequently by the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Arrington, 2 Ohio St.2d 172, 207 N.E.2d 557 (1965), affirmed on rehearing, 3 Ohio St.2d 61, 209 N.E.2d 207 (1965), cert. denied sub nom. Arrington v. Ohio, 383 U.S. 906, ......
-
State v. Arrington
...HERBERT and SCHNEIDER, JJ., concur. O'NEILL, Judge (concurring in judgment). The court, in its original opinion in this case (2 Ohio St.2d 172, 207 N.E.2d 557), relied entirely upon the authority of State v. McLeod (1965), in which I dissented, I Ohio St.2d 60, 203 N.E.2d 349, reversed by t......
- City of Cleveland v. Perk, 39135