Edmonds v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Edmonds v. State

164 N.E. 649, 30 Ohio App. 195, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 477, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 509

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 23, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 164 N.E. 649 (Edmonds 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

Edmonds v. State, 164 N.E. 649, 30 Ohio App. 195, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 477, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 509 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

FULL TEXT.

WILLIAMS, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Common Pleas Court of this county on a charg-e of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, seventeen years of age, and sentenced to the reformatory for women at Marysville, Ohio, for an indeterminate term. Error was prosecuted to this court and the question made by the plaintiff in error is that the affidavit does not charge an offense. The affidavit charges:

“That on or about the 29th‘day of June, 1927, at the County of Mahoning aforesaid, one Ester Edmonds did contribute toward the delinquency of one Prances Miller, then and there a minor under the age of seventeen years, to-wit, of the age of seventeen years, in this, to-wit; In that she was a party in taking said minor away from home contrary to the wishes of her mother, and in divers other ways and times, she the said Mrs. Ester Edmonds, did wilfully and unlawfuly contribute to the delinquency of said minor, Prances Miller, she, the said Mrs. Ester Edmonds, well knowing the said Frances Miller to be such minor.”

It is fundamental that there can be no valid conviction upon an affidavit which charges no offense against the laws of the State of Ohio. We think it is wholly insufficient, even where the question is not raised until after conviction, to charge delinqency in an affidavit without specifying some facts which show that the minor was a “delinquent child” within the meaning of General Code Sec. 1644, and that it is not sufficient to charge the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in the language of the statue as found in General Code Section 1654. Section 1644 defines specifically the meaning of the words “delinquent child,” and Section 1654 makes it a misdemeanor to contribute toward the delinquency, “as herein defined of a minor under the age of eighteen years.” The words “as herein defined” _ as used in Section 1654 refer to the definition of “delinquent child” contained in Section 1644. The affidavit contains no charge unless it specifies the acts of which the delinquency consisted.

For the reason that the affidavit charged no offense .under the laws of Ohio, the judgment of the court below will be reversed and the defendant discharged. As the defendant has never been charged with an offense there is no reason why a sufficient affidavit may not be filed and a trial of the cause had thereon in accordance with law.

(Farr, and Thomas, JJ., concur.)

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

FULL TEXT.

WILLIAMS, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Common Pleas Court of this county on a charg-e of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, seventeen years of age, and sentenced to the reformatory for women at Marysville, Ohio, for an indeterminate term. Error was prosecuted to this court and the question made by the plaintiff in error is that the affidavit does not charge an offense. The affidavit charges:

“That on or about the 29th‘day of June, 1927, at the County of Mahoning aforesaid, one Ester Edmonds did contribute toward the delinquency of one Prances Miller, then and there a minor under the age of seventeen years, to-wit, of the age of seventeen years, in this, to-wit; In that she was a party in taking said minor away from home contrary to the wishes of her mother, and in divers other ways and times, she the said Mrs. Ester Edmonds, did wilfully and unlawfuly contribute to the delinquency of said minor, Prances Miller, she, the said Mrs. Ester Edmonds, well knowing the said Frances Miller to be such minor.”

It is fundamental that there can be no valid conviction upon an affidavit which charges no offense against the laws of the State of Ohio. We think it is wholly insufficient, even where the question is not raised until after conviction, to charge delinqency in an affidavit without specifying some facts which show that the minor was a “delinquent child” within the meaning of General Code Sec. 1644, and that it is not sufficient to charge the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in the language of the statue as found in General Code Section 1654. Section 1644 defines specifically the meaning of the words “delinquent child,” and Section 1654 makes it a misdemeanor to contribute toward the delinquency, “as herein defined of a minor under the age of eighteen years.” The words “as herein defined” _ as used in Section 1654 refer to the definition of “delinquent child” contained in Section 1644. The affidavit contains no charge unless it specifies the acts of which the delinquency consisted.

For the reason that the affidavit charged no offense .under the laws of Ohio, the judgment of the court below will be reversed and the defendant discharged. As the defendant has never been charged with an offense there is no reason why a sufficient affidavit may not be filed and a trial of the cause had thereon in accordance with law.

(Farr, and Thomas, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 N.E. 649, 30 Ohio App. 195, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 477, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmonds-v-state-ohioctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack