State v. Brock
| Decision Date | 12 February 1973 |
| Parties | , 63 O.O.2d 288 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BROCK, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Courts may take judicial notice of any scientific fact which may be ascertained by reference to a standard dictionary or is of such general knowledge that it is known by any judicial officer.
2. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that heroin is a narcotic drug and is habit forming.
Simon L. Leis, Jr. and Donald L. Schott, Cincinnati, for appellee.
Martin S. Pinales, Cincinnati, for appellant.
This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal of questions of law, the transcript of the docket, journal entries and original papers from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, the transcript of the proceedings, the assignment of error and the briefs and arguments of counsel.
The defendant, appellant herein, does not present an assignment of error, but states the following: We will consider the question posed as a single assignment of error.
The defendant was indicted, and waived a jury trial. He was tried by the court, found guilty and sentenced for a violation of R.C. 3719.172, * which reads as follows:
'No person, except a manufacturer or wholesaler or retail dealer in surgical instruments, owner of a pharmacy, pharmacist, practitioner, nurse, or other person authorized to administer narcotic drugs, shall possess a hypodermic syringe or needle or any instrument or implement adopted for the use of habit-forming drugs by the subcutaneous injection for the purpose of administering habit-forming drugs, unless such possession is authorized by the certificate of a physician issued within the period of one year.'
The evidence presented included a hypodermic needle, which showed traces of heroin and was in the possession of the defendant as set forth in the indictment. There was no evidence presented by any witness learned in the use of heroin that heroin is a habit forming drug.
The record discloses that the trial court took judicial notice of the fact that heroin is a habit forming drug.
The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the trial court is permitted to take judicial notice of the fact that heroin is a habit forming drug within the meaning of R.C. 3917.17.2.
We conclude that the courts may take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Green
...is an opium derivative); People v. Vaughn, 35 A.D.2d 889, 889, 315 N.Y.S.2d 771 (1970) (cocaine is a narcotic); State v. Brock, 34 Ohio App.2d 175, 296 N.E.2d 837 (1973) (heroin is a habit forming drug); Kovash v. State, 519 P.2d 517, 522 (Okla.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830, 95 S.C......
- Maloney v. General Tire Sales, Inc.
-
State v. Larry A. Duncan, 86-LW-1555
... ... See, State v ... Reed, 14 Ohio App.3d 63 (the determination of whether a ... drug is a controlled substance is one of law for the court ... and additionally the court may take judicial notice that ... Valium is a Schedule IV drug); State v. Brock ... (1973), 34 Ohio App.2d 175 (trial court properly took ... judicial notice of fact that heroin is a narcotic drug and ... habit forming); Stone v. Sacks (Ohio App.1960) 191 ... N.E.2d 185 (court took judicial notice of fact that paregoric ... has an opium content of ... ...
-
State v. Reese
...as a judge and as a well-informed member of the community. See State v. Treadway (1974), Ohio App., 328 N.E.2d 825; State v. Brock (1973), 34 Ohio App.2d 175, 296 N.E.2d 837. For the reasons given above, the judgment of the trial court is Judgment reversed. SHANNON, P. J., and BETTMAN and C......