Diegle v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Diegle v. State

86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 310

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 20, 1912

DocketNo. 13296

StatusPublished

This text of 86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 310 (Diegle 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

Diegle v. State, 86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 310 (Ohio 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price, Jopinson and Donahue, JJ., concur. Davis, C. J., dissenting:

I assume that the jury may have found correctly upon the facts. But I do not concur in this judgment for the following reasons: First, misconduct by one of the prosecuting counsel in argument to the jury and in direct violation of [311]*311the statute prohibiting comment on the failure of the accused to testify; not being of the opinion that any admonition by the court could take the prejudice created by such comments out of the mind of the jury; and, second, because I cannot concur, in the breadth with which it seems to be adopted by the majority, in the doctrine of enticement by the state. The attorney general and prosecuting attorney insisted that the unreported case of Fox v. The State, 53 Bull., 28, which was heard upon a motion for leave to file a petition in error, is in all its essential facts identical with this case. In that I agree. But I did not concur in the judgment in Fox v. The State, and see no additional reason to do so now.

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

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price, Jopinson and Donahue, JJ., concur. Davis, C. J., dissenting:

I assume that the jury may have found correctly upon the facts. But I do not concur in this judgment for the following reasons: First, misconduct by one of the prosecuting counsel in argument to the jury and in direct violation of [311]*311the statute prohibiting comment on the failure of the accused to testify; not being of the opinion that any admonition by the court could take the prejudice created by such comments out of the mind of the jury; and, second, because I cannot concur, in the breadth with which it seems to be adopted by the majority, in the doctrine of enticement by the state. The attorney general and prosecuting attorney insisted that the unreported case of Fox v. The State, 53 Bull., 28, which was heard upon a motion for leave to file a petition in error, is in all its essential facts identical with this case. In that I agree. But I did not concur in the judgment in Fox v. The State, and see no additional reason to do so now.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diegle-v-state-ohio-1912.