Baker v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Baker v. State

19 Ohio Law. Abs. 126

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Baker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 17 Ohio Law. Abs. 384 →

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided April 4, 1935·No. No 2529·Published

Opinions

OPINION

PER CURIAM

The principal error complained of is that the judgment of the trial court is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

To reverse upon that ground requires the concurrence of all of the judges of this court. We have carefully read and considered at length the record, and have been mindful of the law which requires proof of crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but we are unable to reach the unanimous conclusion that this conviction should be reversed upon the weight of the evidence.

We find no prejudicial error in any of the other claims made.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM

The principal error complained of is that the judgment of the trial court is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

To reverse upon that ground requires the concurrence of all of the judges of this court. We have carefully read and considered at length the record, and have been mindful of the law which requires proof of crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but we are unable to reach the unanimous conclusion that this conviction should be reversed upon the weight of the evidence.

We find no prejudicial error in any of the other claims made.

Judgment affirmed.

Baker v. State, 19 Ohio Law. Abs. 126 (Ohio Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

19 Ohio Law. Abs. 126 (Baker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.