State v. Nutter
| Decision Date | 06 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69-421,69-421 |
| Citation | 258 N.E.2d 440,22 Ohio St.2d 116,51 O.O.2d 178 |
| Parties | , 51 O.O.2d 178 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. NUTTER, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A plea of not guilty by an accused requires the state to prove all material facts relating to the crime with which he is charged, including those relating to the corpus delicti. Under the provisions of R.C. § 2905.06, one of such essential elements is the insanity of the woman. (Paragraph three of the syllabus of Morgan v. State, 48 Ohio St. 371, 27 N.E. 710, approved and followed.)
2. Where, in the trial of an accused under R.C. § 2905.06, the trial judge informs the jury of his ruling as to the competency of the woman-victim to testify, and intimates to the jury his opinion as to her sanity, insanity being an essential element of the crime charged, the court commits error prejudicial to the defendant which cannot be cured by later admonishing the jury to disregard such statements.
On November 14, 1967, Richard Earl Nutter was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Ashtabula County of violating R.C. § 2905.06. Section 2905.06 provides, in pertinent part:
'No male person over seventeen years of age, shall have carnal knowledge of an insane woman who is not his wife, knowing her to be insane.'
Defendant appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of the Eleventy Appellate District which reversed the conviction and ordered the trial court to grant defendant's motion for a new trial. The case is in this court pursuant to leave granted to the state to appeal the Court of Appeals' judgment of reversal.
The trial judge informed the jury that in their absence he had determined that defendant's alleged victim was incompetent to testify. 1 The Court of Appeals held that the trial judge's statements not only implied that the alleged victim was insane, but also usurped the functions and duties of the jury by informing the jury of his voir dire incompetency ruling, when insanity was one of the essential elements of the crime sought to be proved. The Court of Appeals held further that the admonitions to the jury, to disregard the trial judge's finding of incompetency as a witness, could not be effective when the legal conclusion that a witness is not competent to testify so closely parallels a required fact finding of insanity by the jury.
The state argues that it was not reversible error for the court to relate to the jury its voir dire finding made out of the presence of the jury because there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of insanity without the court's comments.
Robert Webb, Pros. Atty., and Louis A. DiFabio, Geneva, for appellant.
Tom R. Bailey, Ashtabula, for appellee.
Before proceeding, it is relevant to set forth some fundamental principles which serve as the basis for this decision. First, a plea of not guilty requires the state to prove all material facts including those relating to the corpus delicti. Morgan v. State, 48 Ohio St. 371, 27 N.E. 710, paragraph three of the syllabus. The corpus delicti of a crime is the body or substance of the crime and includes the criminal act itself. State v. Maranda, 94 Ohio St. 364, 114 N.E. 1038, paragraph one of the syllabus. Moreover, the state, in proving the corpus delicti, must establish by evidence each essential element of the crime as charged and as specified in the statute. State v. Miclau, 167 Ohio St. 38, 146 N.E.2d 293, paragraph one of the syllabus.
The state's burden in establishing the guilt of an accused is to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. R.C. § 2945.04. Since the existence of an element of a crime is a factual matter, it is within the peculiar and exclusive province of the jury to determine that question of fact. See R.C. § 2945.11; Robbins v. State, 8 Ohio St. 131. In addition, Sections 5 and 10 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution, which declare the inviolability of a jury trial and guarantee an accused an impartial jury, inferentially require that factual questions relating to the crime are within the exclusive province of the jury.
In the instant case, the defendant was trial and convicted of violating R.C. § 2905.06. To prove the accused guilty the state had to prove that the defendant was over 17 years old; that the defendant had carnal knowledge; that the woman was insane; that the woman was not his wife; and that the defendant knew of the insanity. The existence of each of these elements was exclusively a jury question. (See discussion, supra, concerning proof of elements.)
The trial judge, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hopfer
...ex rel. Wise v. Chand (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 113, 119, 50 O.O.2d 322, 325, 256 N.E.2d 613, 617; see State v. Nutter (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 116, 119, 51 O.O.2d 178, 180, 258 N.E.2d 440, 443; State v. Sutton (1966), 7 Ohio App.2d 178, 180, 36 O.O.2d 313, 314, 219 N.E.2d 307, In order to determi......
-
State v. Bridgeman
...the judge of the facts and comes within the prohibitions of Morgan v. State (1891), 48 Ohio St. 371, 27 N.E. 710; State v. Nutter (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 116, 258 N.E.2d 440, and Premack v. State (1908), 11 Ohio Cir.Ct.R.N.S., 2. Where the defense offers no direct evidence contradicting the c......
-
Taylor v. Bunting
...any constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court, but on 98 Corpus Juris Secundum 60, Witnesses,§ 347. In the second case, State v. Nutter, 22 Ohio St. 2d 116 (1970), the Ohio Supreme Court reversed a conviction for having sex with an insane person even though the trial judge had usurped t......
-
Gayheart v. Dayton Power & Light Co.
...utmost care when instructing the jury to avoid revealing the opinion of the court on a particular issue. State v. Nutter (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 116, 51 O.O.2d 178, 258 N.E.2d 440. Certainly, there may be cases where it is error for the trial court to repeat a phrase used by a party in closin......