State v. Springer
| Decision Date | 25 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 34625,34625 |
| Citation | 134 N.E.2d 150,165 Ohio St. 182 |
| Parties | , 59 O.O. 241 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SPRINGER, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Drury & Koch, Van Wert, for appellant.
Don W. Montgomery, Pros. Atty., and John J. Hinders, Celina, for appellee.
Defendant's first error assigned is that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the action of the trial court in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict and for dismissal of the indictment. To determine the question thus raised would necessitate the weighing of the evidence. The trial court and the Court of Appeals have passed on that question. This court is not required to determine as to the weight of the evidence in a criminal case. Section 2953.02, Revised Code; State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 473, 76 N.E.2d 355, 5 A.L.R.2d 425.
Other errors assigned relate to the admissibility of evidence which was not objected to at the time of trial. During the course of the trial, defense counsel stated:
Issues as to the admissibility of evidence not objected to at the time of trial will be considered as waived and can not be the subject of review. Gage v. Payne, Wright 678; Clark v. State, 12 Ohio 483, 40 Am.Dec. 481; Ruch v. State, 111 Ohio St. 580, 146 N.E. 67.
Defendant claims further that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to examine the prosecuting witness as to prior statements she had made before the Grand Jury and in the prosecuting attorney's office, contending he was thus permitted to impeach his own witness. Because of an apparent change of attitude of the witness, the court declared her to be hostile and allowed the prosecuting attorney 'to proceed to examine her as upon cross-examination.' During this examination, in which the prosecuting attorney attempted to refresh the recollection of the witness by interrogation as to her former statements, the witness did not repudiate or deny making any of such prior statements, and no objection was made by defense counsel.
This claim of error is clearly refuted by the case of Hurley v. State, 46 Ohio St. 320, 21 N.E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cook
...WL 778377, *4–5 (Sept. 24, 1999), citing State v. Stearns, 7 Ohio App.3d 11, 14, 454 N.E.2d 139 (8th Dist.1982) and State v. Springer, 165 Ohio St. 182, 134 N.E.2d 150 (1956). {¶ 100} In the instant case, we note appellant did not invoke Evid.R. 607 at trial; no objection was raised through......
-
State v. Stearns
...significantly from that which counsel had good reason to expect, he was traditionally subject to leading questions. State v. Springer (1956), 165 Ohio St. 182, 134 N.E.2d 150 The Evidence Rules broadened the circumstances in which leading questions can be permitted, inter alia, by allowing ......
-
City of Cleveland Heights v. Clyde Reed, 95-LW-1066
... ... will address the defendant's assignments of error in the ... order asserted ... I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PERMITTING THE STATE TO CALL A ... HOSTILE WITNESS (EVID. R. 607) ON DIRECT EXAMINATION ... When a ... witness demonstrates hostility during ... good reason to expect, he was traditionally subject to ... leading questions. State v. Springer (1956), 165 ... Ohio St. 182. The essence of this rule is contained in Evid ... R. 61(C) which states as follows: ... Leading ... ...
-
State v. Minneker
...cross-examine him concerning his prior inconsistent statement only for the purpose of refreshing his recollection. State v. Springer (1956), 165 Ohio St. 182, 134 N.E.2d 150; State v. Duffy, supra, 134 Ohio St. 16, 15 N.E.2d 535; Hurley v. (1889), 46 Ohio St. 320, 21 N.E. 645. See, also, 11......