Belden v. State

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 135, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1271
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 8, 1927
DocketNo. 98
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 135 (Belden v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Belden v. State, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 135, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1271 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

Leland Belden was charged with rape, and assault with intent to commit rape upon a girl seventeen years of age, who is shown by the evidence to be feeble-minded. A jury in the Ottawa Common Pleas returned a vedict of not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second count; and sentence has been passed accordingly.

On error proceedings, it was claimed that there is no evidence showing the alleged crime to have been committed in Ottawa County; that the court erred in the admission of the testimony of Dr. Louis- Miller as to the mental condition of the prosecuting witness; and that the verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The evidence shows that the transaction occurred- on Put-in-Bay Island. Courts may take judicial notice of geographical division, particularly those existing within the jurisdiction of the court.

2. Within this rule, we hold that the Court may take judicial notice that Put-in-Bay is-located within the County of Ottawa, State of Ohio.

3. Dr. Miller, after being duly qualified was permitted to give his opinion that the prosecuting witness was feeble-minded; that her mental capacity is that of a child about six years old, and her reasoning power is very much diminished. He also testified that her judgment and knowledge are infantile in character but on the emotional side she seems more normal and seems to have normal instincts and can distinguish right from wrong in a general way.

4. The prosecuting witness’ mental and physical condition was competent to assist in enabling the jury to determine the kind of an assault made by the accused and the force used or necessary to be used in the attempt to accomplish his purpose.

5. The verdict is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence; and the evidence warrants the conclusion reached by the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

(Culbert & Williams, JJ., concur.)

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

Related

Englewood v. Bettis
15 Ohio Law. Abs. 8 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Ohio Law. Abs. 135, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belden-v-state-ohioctapp-1927.