State v. Barron
| Decision Date | 20 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 36018,36018 |
| Citation | 164 N.E.2d 409,170 Ohio St. 267,10 O.O.2d 299 |
| Parties | , 10 O.O.2d 299 STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. BARRON, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under Section 2945.10(E), Revised Code, it is not mandatory upon a trial court to give any instructions to the jury in a criminal case before argument, but, if requested special instructions, reduced to writing, are correct, pertinent and timely presented, they must be included, at least in substance, in the general charge.
Darrell Barron, hereinafter called defendant, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Lucas County on a charge of second degree murder for purposely and maliciously killing one Robert Sanders. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury which returned the following verdict: 'Not guilty as charged in the indictment, but do find the defendant guilty of manslaughter.' (Section 2901.06, Revised Code.) Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Ohio Penitentiary.
An appeal on questions of law was then taken to the Court of Appeals where the judgment of conviction was reversed for prejudicial error on the part of the trial court in refusing to give to the jury the substance of special requests to charge Nos. 5, 6 and 7 presented by counsel for defendant.
A motion by the state for leave to appeal to this court was allowed, and the cause is now here for disposition on its merits.
Harry Friberg, Pros. Atty., Joseph J. Jan and Anthony Pizza, Toledo, for appellant.
Richard B. McQuade, Swanton, and James Nestroff, Toledo, for appellee.
The bill of exceptions discloses that defendant owned and operated a tavern in Lucas County on the 'Chicago Pike' about a half mile east of the new Toledo airport. This tavern was patronized largely by Negroes, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans residing in the general neighborhood. Late on the night of June 16, 1958, a group of five young Negroes entered the tavern, Robert and David Sanders among them, created a continuing disturbance and were requested to leave. Such disturbance was of sufficient proportions to cause the defendant to call a constable. Upon the constable's arrival, the defendant requested him to arrest David Sanders. The disorder continued with threats of violence, and assistance from the sheriff's office was asked by telephone. The disturbing group then left the tavern, whereupon defendant procured a pistol and began firing it on the outside of the tavern. One of the bullets struck Robert Sanders in the back and killed him when he was proceeding hurriedly in the general direction where his automobile was parked.
During the trial, at the conclusion of the evidence and before argument, counsel for defendant submitted to the court in writing eight special instructions with the request that they be given to the jury. Special instructions Nos. 1, 2 and 8 were incorporated in the general charge and had to do with second degree murder, degrees of proof and the manner in which oral statements attributed to a defendant should be regarded. The court declined to give special instructions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as presented and did not incorporate the substance of Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the general charge. The special instructions which were refused dealt with definitions of unlawful acts, the right of a person without a warrant to make an arrest, the duty of a tavern keeper with respect to conduct on his premises, trespass and the duty of a tavern keeper to protect his patrons.
The three special instructions, the substance of which the Court of Appeals held should have been given, are as follows:
'Special Instruction Number 5. Section 4399.16 of the Revised Code of Ohio provides, as follows: 'No tavern keeper shall permit rioting, reveling, intoxication, or drunkenness in his house or on his premises.'
'If you find from the evidence that the defendant, Darrell Barron, is a tavern keeper; that Robert Sanders and other persons acting in concert with him were rioting or reveling, while on the defendant's Darrell Barron, premises, then the court charges you, as a matter of law, that the defendant, Darrell Barron, had a mandatory duty, imposed upon him by the law of this state, to attempt to quell or suppress said rioting or reveling.
'Special Instruction Number 6. Section 2909.21 of the Revised Code of Ohio provides as follows: 'No person shall enter without lawful authority upon the land or premises of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grinnell
...pertinent and presented in a timely manner must be included in substance in the general charge to the jury. State v. Barron (1960), 170 Ohio St. 267, 10 O.O.2d 299, 164 N.E.2d 409. However, abstract rules of law or general propositions, even though correct, should not be given unless they a......
-
State v. Yvonne Redd and Shawn Redd
... ... R.C. 2945.11. As a rule of law, this ... court has established that "correct and pertinent" ... requests to a charge must be given to the jury, either as ... specifically proposed, or within the substance of the general ... charge. State v. Barron (1960), 170 Ohio St. 267 [10 ... O.O.2d 299], 164 N.E.2d 409 ... See, ... also, State v. Ervin (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 275 ... Following the presentation of the evidence, but prior to ... closing arguments and the court's charge to the ... ...
-
State v. Guster
...are correct, pertinent, and timely presented, they must be included, at least in substance, in the general charge. (State v. Barron, 170 Ohio St. 267, 164 N.E.2d 409, followed.)" Cincinnati v. Epperson (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 59, 253 N.E.2d 785, paragraph one of the syllabus. See State v. Cor......
-
State v. Perryman, 76-583
...to charge must be given to the jury, either as specifically proposed, or within the substance of the general charge. State v. Barron (1960), 170 Ohio St. 267, 164 N.E.2d 409. We believe the trial court's charge sufficiently conveyed the substance of the appellant's requested charge, and it ......