Glasscock v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Glasscock v. State

180 N.E. 539, 125 Ohio St. 75, 125 Ohio St. (N.S.) 75, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 329

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 23, 1932

Docket23260

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 N.E. 539 (Glasscock 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

Glasscock v. State, 180 N.E. 539, 125 Ohio St. 75, 125 Ohio St. (N.S.) 75, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 329 (Ohio 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Bf the Court.

Glasscock was charged with murder in the first degree. There was but one count in the indictment, and that was based upon Section 12402-1, General Code, and charged that the defendant unlawfully, purposely and maliciously killed James Ryan, a policeman, while he was in the discharge of his duties as such policeman. Upon trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty, without a recommendation of mercy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and upon motion the record was certified to this court for review.

The question presented is whether error prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, Glasscock, resulted from the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury relative to the lesser degrees of homicide and to inform the jury that a verdict could be so returned if they found the defendant guilty of only such lesser offense.

The difficulty in this class of cases arises out of the action of the prosecuting attorney in preparing an indictment with only one count, and could readily be obviated by including an additional count. This court had before it a similar question in the case of Freeman v. State, 119 Ohio St., 250, 163 N. E., 202. It was there held, as it had been held in other cases cited in the opinion, that, where the evidence justifies it, the lesser degrees of an included offense should be charged in accordance with the provisions of Section 13692 (now 13448-2), General Code. In this case, however, while error was committed, it was favorable to the defendant and not prejudicial to his rights. The court instructed the jury in substance that .they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that Ryan was a policeman, and that they could *77 not return a verdict of guilty unless they found beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that Ryan was a police officer. The theory urged on behalf of the defendant was that he fired in self-defense, and on that issue the court quite fully instructed the jury in all respects favorably to the defendant.

Finding no prejudicial error the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kjnkadb and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

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

Bf the Court.

Glasscock was charged with murder in the first degree. There was but one count in the indictment, and that was based upon Section 12402-1, General Code, and charged that the defendant unlawfully, purposely and maliciously killed James Ryan, a policeman, while he was in the discharge of his duties as such policeman. Upon trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty, without a recommendation of mercy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and upon motion the record was certified to this court for review.

The question presented is whether error prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, Glasscock, resulted from the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury relative to the lesser degrees of homicide and to inform the jury that a verdict could be so returned if they found the defendant guilty of only such lesser offense.

The difficulty in this class of cases arises out of the action of the prosecuting attorney in preparing an indictment with only one count, and could readily be obviated by including an additional count. This court had before it a similar question in the case of Freeman v. State, 119 Ohio St., 250, 163 N. E., 202. It was there held, as it had been held in other cases cited in the opinion, that, where the evidence justifies it, the lesser degrees of an included offense should be charged in accordance with the provisions of Section 13692 (now 13448-2), General Code. In this case, however, while error was committed, it was favorable to the defendant and not prejudicial to his rights. The court instructed the jury in substance that .they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that Ryan was a policeman, and that they could *77 not return a verdict of guilty unless they found beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that Ryan was a police officer. The theory urged on behalf of the defendant was that he fired in self-defense, and on that issue the court quite fully instructed the jury in all respects favorably to the defendant.

Finding no prejudicial error the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kjnkadb and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 N.E. 539, 125 Ohio St. 75, 125 Ohio St. (N.S.) 75, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glasscock-v-state-ohio-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack