Knudson v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Knudson v. State

153 N.E. 873, 22 Ohio App. 472, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 105, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 253

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 1925

Docket321

StatusPublished

This text of 153 N.E. 873 (Knudson 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

Knudson v. State, 153 N.E. 873, 22 Ohio App. 472, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 105, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 253 (Ohio Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

YOUNG, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Martin Knudson was arrested on an affidavit charging him with possession of intoxicating liquors in violation of the Ohio Liquor Laws; the affidavit charged a second offense. On arraignment a plea of not guilty was entered, and at the trial in the Wood Probate Court he *106 was sentenced to pay a fine of $2000 and costs.

Attorneys—Benjamin F. James for Knudson; Roy D. Avery, Pros. Atty for State; both of Bowling Green.

This was prosecuted in error and Knudson alleges that on trial day the plea of not guilty was withdrawn for the purpose of filing a motion and demurrer directed to the affidavit. The motion and demurrer were overruled' and cause proceeded to trial. Knudson declares that no further plea was entered but the court changed the bill of exceptions by striking out the word “withdrawn” and substituting the word “re-entered.” Prior to the bringing of the cause to the Court of Appeals, Knudson brought a proceeding in mandamus in the Supreme Court where he sought a writ requiring the probate ‘ court to sign and allow what Knudson claims to be a true bill of exceptions. This writ was refused.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. No prejudical error results to Knudson because of the fact that the plea to the general issue was not entered a second time. Gormley v. State 37 OS 120. Mere change in expression in the record is immaterial.

"2. Finding that the judgment is not against the weight of the evidence the judgment will be affirmed.

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

YOUNG, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Martin Knudson was arrested on an affidavit charging him with possession of intoxicating liquors in violation of the Ohio Liquor Laws; the affidavit charged a second offense. On arraignment a plea of not guilty was entered, and at the trial in the Wood Probate Court he *106 was sentenced to pay a fine of $2000 and costs.

Attorneys—Benjamin F. James for Knudson; Roy D. Avery, Pros. Atty for State; both of Bowling Green.

This was prosecuted in error and Knudson alleges that on trial day the plea of not guilty was withdrawn for the purpose of filing a motion and demurrer directed to the affidavit. The motion and demurrer were overruled' and cause proceeded to trial. Knudson declares that no further plea was entered but the court changed the bill of exceptions by striking out the word “withdrawn” and substituting the word “re-entered.” Prior to the bringing of the cause to the Court of Appeals, Knudson brought a proceeding in mandamus in the Supreme Court where he sought a writ requiring the probate ‘ court to sign and allow what Knudson claims to be a true bill of exceptions. This writ was refused.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. No prejudical error results to Knudson because of the fact that the plea to the general issue was not entered a second time. Gormley v. State 37 OS 120. Mere change in expression in the record is immaterial.

"2. Finding that the judgment is not against the weight of the evidence the judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 N.E. 873, 22 Ohio App. 472, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 105, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knudson-v-state-ohioctapp-1925.