Chatfield v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Chatfield v. State

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 645

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 7, 1924

DocketNo. 18642

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 645 (Chatfield v. State) 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

Chatfield v. State, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 645 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Epitomized Opinion

Chatfield and Zeazell were indicted, charged with embezzlement alleged to have been committed Feb. 13, 1923. They were tried jointly in the Hamilton Common Pleas, and on Jan. 31, 1924, were convicted. Chatfield was sentenced to the penitentiary.

Chatfield claims error on the ground that 13677 GC. provides that persons indicted jointly for a felony shall be tried separately.

That the embezzlement was alleged to have been committed on Feb. 13, 1923.

That the amendment to the above section, allowing the court to determine whether those indicted jointly shall be tried jointly or separately, was not passed until April 24, 1923.

That the said amended statute as applied to this crime is an post facto law within the restrictions imposed by Art. 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution of the U. S. and a retroactive law within the provisions of Sec. 28, Art. 11, of the Ohio Constitution.

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

Epitomized Opinion

Chatfield and Zeazell were indicted, charged with embezzlement alleged to have been committed Feb. 13, 1923. They were tried jointly in the Hamilton Common Pleas, and on Jan. 31, 1924, were convicted. Chatfield was sentenced to the penitentiary.

Chatfield claims error on the ground that 13677 GC. provides that persons indicted jointly for a felony shall be tried separately.

That the embezzlement was alleged to have been committed on Feb. 13, 1923.

That the amendment to the above section, allowing the court to determine whether those indicted jointly shall be tried jointly or separately, was not passed until April 24, 1923.

That the said amended statute as applied to this crime is an post facto law within the restrictions imposed by Art. 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution of the U. S. and a retroactive law within the provisions of Sec. 28, Art. 11, of the Ohio Constitution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatfield-v-state-ohio-1924.