State v. Doll
| Decision Date | 16 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69-633,69-633 |
| Parties | , 53 O.O.2d 324 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. DOLL, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The purpose of R.C. 2907.34, the embezzlement statute, is to deter breaches of the fiduciary relationship. State v. Baxter, 89 Ohio St. 269, 104 N.E. 331.
2. In view of such purpose, where the total value of the property embezzled in the same continuous employment or term of office is sixty dollars or more and the peculations occur within three years prior to the inception of prosecution, the several peculations must be considered as one offense.
3. Evidence is admissible where it is of sufficient force that it logically tends to prove or disprove a fact or issue necessary to a decision in a particular case, unless such evidence is excluded by a rule of law or policy not primarily concerned with the probative force of evidence.
4. In a trial for embezzlement, testimony and prosecuting attorney's remarks at salient points throughout the trial suggesting that defendant might have committed arson in an attempt to destroy the evidence of embezzlement, when such testimony and remarks have no probative value as to any issue in the case, are inflammatory, and prejudicial to the defendant.
Louis E. Doll was indicted in August 1967, under two separate indictments, each of which was for embezzlement under R.C. 2907.34. One indictment involved the embezzlement of $14,828.09 from his employer, Queen City Supply Company, during the year 1966. The other indictment involved embezzlement of $3,330.89 from the same employer between January 1, 1967, and March 15, 1967. Defendant was tried simultaneously on both indictments in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County. Upon trial, defendant was found guilty as charged in both indictments, and he was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary for two terms of one-to-ten years, the sentences to run consecutively.
The testimony revealed that in 1962 the defendant became controller of Queen City Supply Company, an industrial supply house. He was responsible for the operation of the accounting department. As part of his overall responsibility he collected, accounted for, and deposited cash received by the company from cash sales, cash collections for C.O.D. deliveries, and cash received from employees as repayment of advancements for expenses. Because of its unfavorable cash position and its consequent continuous need to operate on borrowed funds, the company hired a firm of certified public accountants in 1966 to make a procedural study of the accounting department and its functions. After the audit, there was but slight improvement in the company's cash position. Consequently, near the end of 1966, the company requested the accounting firm to perform a general audit which began in February 1967. By comparing the accounts receivable ledger cards against what customers stated they owed the company, discrepancies were discovered in a number of accounts. The testimony indicated that the difference between cash received and cash deposited was as indicated for the respective periods stated in the indictments. The company discharged the defendant on March 15, 1967.
During the trial the state presented testimony regarding burned accounts receivable ledger cards. The defendant made timely objections to all this testimony. Butler, the president of the company, related that on Saturday, March 10 (sic), 1967, he, the defendant, and one Lotterer, a vice president, were at the company office taking care of some paper work, although the company was not open for business; that he and Lotterer left the office before the defendant; and that he did not return until the following Monday morning. At that time, Butler discovered that apparently someone had broken into the building, dumped the accounts receivable ledger cards on the floor of the fire vault, and has set them on fire. The vault was a concerete block room with a steel fire-safe door on which there was a combination lock. Important records were stored in this vault including the accounts receivable ledger cards.
Captain Brandner, a supervisor of fire prevention assigned to the arson squad of the Cincinnati Fire Department, testified that he went to the company's office on March 13, 1967, at 12:25 a. m. He found that a fire had occurred in the storage vault in the bookkeeping department and in some file cabinets located about 10 feet from the storage vault. In the file cabinets he found pads of burned matches. Captain Brandner stated that he could not determine when the fire was started.
Subsequently, the defendant moved for a new trial and for reconsideration of his sentence. Both motions were overruled. The defendant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals, which court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of defendant's motion for leave to appeal.
Melvin G. Rueger, Pros. Atty., and Robert K. Sachs, Cincinnati, for appellee.
John A. Lloyd, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellant.
There are two issues raised by this appeal. The first issue is whether an employee who embezzles from the same employer various sums, the total of which is $18,159.18, within a 15-month period of continuous employment, which period is within three years prior to the inception of prosecution, is guilty of one or several offenses. The other issue is whether the comments and testimony regarding the burned accounts receivable ledger cards were prejudicial to the conviction of the defendant for embezzlement.
Regarding the first issue, R.C. 2907.34 reads, in part:
(emphasis added.) The portion of that statute emphasized above is unique to Ohio.
The state contends that the penalty provision of R.C. 2907.34 is permissive, authorizing the state to consolidate several transactions occurring within the three-year period specified into one charge or to separate them into several charges. Such an argument, however, ignores the basic objective for which the statutory crime of embezzlement was designed.
As was stated in Phelps v. State (1923), 25 Ariz. 495, 499, 219 P. 589, 590:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dute
...power to formulate and apply proper standards for enforcement of the criminal law in federal courts." {¶19} In State v. Doll, 24 Ohio St.2d 130, 265 N.E.2d 279, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the inflammatory effect of evidence tending to show that the defendant had committed another offe......
-
State v. Kiraly
...and "The Mechanic" known to the FBI. In State v. Craven (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 18, 298 N.E.2d 597, the court, citing State v. Doll (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 130, 265 N.E.2d 279, states at 22, 298 N.E.2d at 599, that, "(t)he inflammatory effect that results from the introduction of evidence tendi......
-
State v. Johnson
...the jurors had been asked. Id. at 19–20, 298 N.E.2d 597. {¶ 28} The Ohio Supreme Court, citing its prior decision in State v. Doll, 24 Ohio St.2d 130, 265 N.E.2d 279 (1970), and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 3 L.Ed.2d 1......
-
State v. Miller
...or disprove a fact or issue necessary to a decision in a particular case * * *.' Paragraph three of the syllabus in State v. Doll (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 130, 265 N.E.2d 279. In the instant cause, Miller's fingerprints were discovered on a paper sack filled with Twin Fair merchandise found in......