Goldberg v. State

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 31
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Goldberg v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 24 Ohio App. 312
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1926·Published

Opinion

CUSHING, J.

1. Indictment charging defendants with unlawfully malting intoxicating liquor containing more than one-half of 1% alcohol is sufficient to admit proof of any kind of liquor mentioned in 6212-14 GC. and to charge offense under 6212-15 and 6212-17, GC.

2. Where court promptly stopped counsel when undertook to go outside record, and cautioned jury to decide case according to law and evidence, there was no prejudicial error in argument of counsel characterizing instruments used in manufacture of liquor for which defendants were prosecuted.

(Buchwalter, PJ., and Hamilton, J., concur.)

For reference to full opinion, see Omnibus Index, last page, this issue.

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

Goldberg v. State, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 31 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 31 (Goldberg v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.