State v. Schaub, 75-308
Decision Date | 21 April 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 75-308,75-308 |
Citation | 346 N.E.2d 295,46 Ohio St.2d 25 |
Parties | , 75 O.O.2d 94 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SCHAUB, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Lee C. Falke, Pros. Atty., and Gary W. Crim, Dayton, for appellee.
Boller & Shuffelton and Michael F. Boller, Sidney, for appellant.
The sole issue for determination is whether the actions of trial counsel for the state in informing the defense witness of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, calling the court's attention to possible difficulties with the defendant's testimony, and the trial court's subsequent rulings thereon, were prejudicial to the defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment and Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution, to obtain witnesses in his favor.
In Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118, the United States Supreme Court stated with respect to a witness's privilege against self-incrimination:
The court stated further, at page 488, 71 S.Ct. at page 819 that it must be
From a review of the record, this court agrees with the Court of Appeals that * * *'See Hoffman v. United States, supra.
With regard to the prosecution's conduct herein, the instant case is distinguishable from the recent case of United States v. Smith (1973) 156 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 478 F.2d 976, which involved a similar fact situation. In that case the court, reversing defendants' convictions, held, at page 979, that '(w)e think that the prosecutor's warning was plainly a threat that resulted in depriving the defendants of * * * (the witness's) testimony.' (Emphasis added.) In the instant case, no such 'threat' was involved. In Everett's own words, 'He (Mr. Jacobson) didn't say he didn't want me to testify; he said it was something or another that I didn't have to testify, or something like that.'
This court does not find any improper action prejudicial to defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Robbins
...110, 114 (1976); State v. Brown, 321 A.2d 478 (Me., 1974); State v. Whiting, 117 N.H. 701, 378 A.2d 736 (1977); State v. Schaub, 46 Ohio St.2d 25, 346 N.E.2d 295 (1976), and Hedgepath v. State, 600 P.2d 348 (Okl.Crim.App.1979). Nothing analogous to the extraordinary circumstances on which t......
-
The State Of Ohio v. Poole
...witness of his right not to incriminate himself. The cases cited by the trial court do not stand for this proposition. In State v. Schaub (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 25, 75 0.0.2d 94, 346 N.E.2d 295, the prosecutor interrupted the witness's questioning and asked the court to advise the witness of......
-
State v. Rodney Douglas
...State v. Lorraine (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 414, 420, citing State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 217, at fn. 49. In State v. Schaub (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 25, counsel called a witness to the stand and the prosecutor interrupted the questioning to request that the court advise the witness......
-
State v. Travis, CASE NO. 1-18-39
...court has the duty to protect the constitutional rights of a witness as well as to ensure a defendant a fair trial. State v. Schaub, 46 Ohio St.2d 25, 27-28 (1976). As long as the trial court does not go so far as to encourage a witness's silence to the point of intimidation, advising a wit......