Pest v. City of Lakewood

Ohio Court of Appeals

Pest v. City of Lakewood

168 N.E. 762, 33 Ohio App. 273, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 532, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 429

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 28, 1928

Docket9055

StatusPublished

This text of 168 N.E. 762 (Pest v. City of Lakewood) 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

Pest v. City of Lakewood, 168 N.E. 762, 33 Ohio App. 273, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 532, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 429 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

*533 SULLIVAN, PJ.

We do not think that the initial act above set forth invalidated the proceedings which subsequently followed and which resulted in a fine of $300.00 and costs, the sentence which was pronounced at the January Term of the Criminal Branch of the Municipal Court of Lakewood, and under the warrant and affidavit, alluded to above.

Therefore, we proceed to examine the record as to whether there was credible evidence under the rules of criminal law, to warrant the conviction, and adhering to the authorities laid down by the Supreme Court that the reviewing court may not reverse the judgment where the trial court has submitted to it credible evidence under the rules of criminal law, which would be sufficient to base a conviction in a criminal case, beyond the existence of a reasonable doubt, we hold that under the record there could be no hypothesis of innocence.

Breeze v. State 12 O.S. 146, Remington v. Harrington 8. Ohio 507; Higgins v. Rocher, 22 C.C. 112, 12 C.D. 220; Painesville Utopia Theater Co. v. Lautermilch, Ohio Law Bulletin and Rep. March 5, 1928, 125. These decisions apply to criminal cases as well as civil cases, providing the evidence is of such a character that applying the rules of the criminal law there is on the face of the record, a legal warrant for conviction.

Holding these views the judgment of the lower sourt is hereby affirmed.

(Vickery and Levine, JJ., concur.)

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

*533 SULLIVAN, PJ.

We do not think that the initial act above set forth invalidated the proceedings which subsequently followed and which resulted in a fine of $300.00 and costs, the sentence which was pronounced at the January Term of the Criminal Branch of the Municipal Court of Lakewood, and under the warrant and affidavit, alluded to above.

Therefore, we proceed to examine the record as to whether there was credible evidence under the rules of criminal law, to warrant the conviction, and adhering to the authorities laid down by the Supreme Court that the reviewing court may not reverse the judgment where the trial court has submitted to it credible evidence under the rules of criminal law, which would be sufficient to base a conviction in a criminal case, beyond the existence of a reasonable doubt, we hold that under the record there could be no hypothesis of innocence.

Breeze v. State 12 O.S. 146, Remington v. Harrington 8. Ohio 507; Higgins v. Rocher, 22 C.C. 112, 12 C.D. 220; Painesville Utopia Theater Co. v. Lautermilch, Ohio Law Bulletin and Rep. March 5, 1928, 125. These decisions apply to criminal cases as well as civil cases, providing the evidence is of such a character that applying the rules of the criminal law there is on the face of the record, a legal warrant for conviction.

Holding these views the judgment of the lower sourt is hereby affirmed.

(Vickery and Levine, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.E. 762, 33 Ohio App. 273, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 532, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pest-v-city-of-lakewood-ohioctapp-1928.