Cantrell v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Cantrell v. Maxwell

177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 15

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 7, 1964

DocketNo. 38953

StatusPublished

This text of 177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 15 (Cantrell v. Maxwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cantrell v. Maxwell, 177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 15 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is petitioner’s contention that tbe grand jury which returned tbe indictment against him was improperly summoned, thus rendering tbe indictment void. He bases tbis argument on tbe alleged facts that tbe clerk did not make tbe proper lists, and that at least two of tbe grand jurors were not served with summons but were called by telephone and asked to serve.

Irregularities in tbe selecting, drawing or summoning of grand jurors which do not relate to or affect their personal qualifications as grand jurors can be taken advantage of by challenge for cause and are not grounds for release by habeas corpus. See Huling v. State, 17 Ohio St., 583; State, ex rel. Burton, Pros. Atty., v. Smith, Judge, 174 Ohio St., 429; and Charles v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St., 217.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., eoncur.

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

Per Curiam.

It is petitioner’s contention that tbe grand jury which returned tbe indictment against him was improperly summoned, thus rendering tbe indictment void. He bases tbis argument on tbe alleged facts that tbe clerk did not make tbe proper lists, and that at least two of tbe grand jurors were not served with summons but were called by telephone and asked to serve.

Irregularities in tbe selecting, drawing or summoning of grand jurors which do not relate to or affect their personal qualifications as grand jurors can be taken advantage of by challenge for cause and are not grounds for release by habeas corpus. See Huling v. State, 17 Ohio St., 583; State, ex rel. Burton, Pros. Atty., v. Smith, Judge, 174 Ohio St., 429; and Charles v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St., 217.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., eoncur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantrell-v-maxwell-ohio-1964.