Moore v. State

163 N.E. 39, 29 Ohio App. 268, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 252, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1122, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 593

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 16, 1928
• Docket: 3148
• Status: Published

Opinion

OPINION OP COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

HAMILTON, PJ.

The question of the proof of venue presents some complications. The record does not present direct evidence on the question. Were it not for the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of State v. Dickerson, reported in 77 OS. 34, we would be constrained to reverse the judgment on the ground of failure to prove venue.

In the case under consideration, it is in the evidence that the grand jury, before which, the false testimony is alleged to have been given by plaintiff in error, was investigating a charge of murder against James Clark; that the killing took place at the residence of the plaintiff in error. She gave her residence and street number. The police officers stated that they were officers in the employ of the City of Cincinnati and investigated the killing at the residence of Corine Moore.

A court stenographer testified that he served as stenographer before the grand jury, which body investigated the killing in the case of State v. Clark, and gave, from his notes, the testimony claimed to have been false.

A deputy clerk of the Courts of Common Pleas of Hamilton County testified that he was such deputy clerk of the Courts of Common Pleas of Hamilton County. It is true he did not say Hamilton County, Ohio, but he stated that he was a deputy clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, and qualified to swear witnesses, and that he served in the capacity of deputy clerk, serving at the grand jury. He testified he swore the plaintiff in error, at that time, as a witness before the grand jury.

Plaintiff in error gave testimony regarding her statements to the police concerning the killing which took place at her home, and testified as to her testimony before the grand jury investigating the killing. •

The record discloses at the beginning of the trial in this case, the following: “The State, to maintain the issues on its part, called, as a witness, Herman Busse. Mr. Beaty: We admit that the Grand Jury was sworn, and that an oath was administered to Corine Moore. We admit all these preliminary matters.”

Mr. Beaty was counsel for Corine Moore. While this admission might not be sufficient to prove venue, nor to waive proof of venue, it can be taken in connection with the other eyidence in the record, which, taken together, no other inference can be reasonably drawn than that the crime took place in Hamilton County, Ohio.

While, as was said in the case of State v. Dickerson, supra, we are not disposed to encourage the lax method of establishing the venue adopted in this case, nevertheless, we are of opinion that, in the light of this decision, the lax method of proof of venue in nowise prejudiced the defense.

We find no error in the record, prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, is affirmed.

(Mills, and Cushing, JJ., concur.)