Rembrandt v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Court of Appeals

Rembrandt v. City of Cleveland

161 N.E. 364, 28 Ohio App. 4, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 803, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 398

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 31, 1927

Docket8455

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 161 N.E. 364 (Rembrandt v. City of Cleveland) 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

Rembrandt v. City of Cleveland, 161 N.E. 364, 28 Ohio App. 4, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 803, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 398 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken verbatim from the opinion.

SULLIVAN, PJ.

The constitutionality of the ordinance is attacked on the ground that it is in contravention of Article 5 of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which provide that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, and Section 10 of Article 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, which provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal cause to be a witness against himself. Section 2788 of the General Code makes it a criminal offense to make a false report, and the effect of Section 2516, it is charged, is that any person, included in the ordinance, who complies with its terms in making a full report, may convict himself of the crime.

In the case of James v. Cleveland (City), decided by this court June 25, 1923, in the opinion of the court written by Vickery, J., this very ordinance in the case at bar was held to be unconstitutional on the authorities laid down in Henry v. Cleveland (City). 27 Oh. Ap. 326, in an able opinion by Leighly, J.; Horton v. State, 85 OS. 13; DeBrul v. State, 80 OS. 52, and Dillingham v. State, 5 OS. 280.

The ordinance provides, among other things, that a full report of the accident shall be made to the police department of the City of Cleveland, upon blanks furnished by the Department, upon application. This means that, under compulsion, the operator of the vehicle must answer in writing, to which he obviously must attach his signature, all questions concerning the details of the accident, and inevitably these answers, in cases of collision, would involve the question of penalties in criminal cases ranging, as before noted, from fines to inpAsonment, for a felony, in the penitentiary. Thus it is plain that the section in question is unconstitutional and our holding is based upon what is apparent upon the record in the case at bar and upon the authoiities above cited.

The trial and conviction below is without authority in law, and it is our unanimous judgment that the plaintiff in error was unlawfully convicted. Thus holding, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the defendant is discharged.

(Levine and Vickery, JJ., concur.)

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

OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken verbatim from the opinion.

SULLIVAN, PJ.

The constitutionality of the ordinance is attacked on the ground that it is in contravention of Article 5 of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which provide that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, and Section 10 of Article 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, which provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal cause to be a witness against himself. Section 2788 of the General Code makes it a criminal offense to make a false report, and the effect of Section 2516, it is charged, is that any person, included in the ordinance, who complies with its terms in making a full report, may convict himself of the crime.

In the case of James v. Cleveland (City), decided by this court June 25, 1923, in the opinion of the court written by Vickery, J., this very ordinance in the case at bar was held to be unconstitutional on the authorities laid down in Henry v. Cleveland (City). 27 Oh. Ap. 326, in an able opinion by Leighly, J.; Horton v. State, 85 OS. 13; DeBrul v. State, 80 OS. 52, and Dillingham v. State, 5 OS. 280.

The ordinance provides, among other things, that a full report of the accident shall be made to the police department of the City of Cleveland, upon blanks furnished by the Department, upon application. This means that, under compulsion, the operator of the vehicle must answer in writing, to which he obviously must attach his signature, all questions concerning the details of the accident, and inevitably these answers, in cases of collision, would involve the question of penalties in criminal cases ranging, as before noted, from fines to inpAsonment, for a felony, in the penitentiary. Thus it is plain that the section in question is unconstitutional and our holding is based upon what is apparent upon the record in the case at bar and upon the authoiities above cited.

The trial and conviction below is without authority in law, and it is our unanimous judgment that the plaintiff in error was unlawfully convicted. Thus holding, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the defendant is discharged.

(Levine and Vickery, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.E. 364, 28 Ohio App. 4, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 803, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rembrandt-v-city-of-cleveland-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack