Eberhart v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Eberhart v. State

161 N.E. 341, 27 Ohio App. 533, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 4, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 970, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 404

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 31, 1927

Docket3102

StatusPublished

This text of 161 N.E. 341 (Eberhart 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

Eberhart v. State, 161 N.E. 341, 27 Ohio App. 533, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 4, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 970, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 404 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OP COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

HAMILTON, PJ.

The question is: Does the statute require the jury to fix the value of an automobile in a case of conviction for concealing a stolen motor vehicle, knowing it to have been stolen? The only section of the Code requiring the jury to fix value in criminal cases, on conviction, is 13961 GC.

The plain reading of the section fixes but three kinds of offenses upon which it becomes necessary to fix value; first, offense against property by larceny; second, embezzlement; and third, obtaining property by false pretense. By no possible interpretation of this section could it be held to apply to concealing a stolen motor vehicle, knowing it to have been stolen. The offense is complete when the concealment, under the circumstances, is proved, whatever the value may be.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was not incumbent upon the jury to fix the value of the automobile in its verdict, judgment will he affirmed.

(Mills and Cushing, JJ., concur.)

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