State ex rel. Tucker v. Alvis

Ohio Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Tucker v. Alvis

89 N.E.2d 328, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 285, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 847

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 6, 1949

DocketNo. 4282

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 89 N.E.2d 328 (State ex rel. Tucker v. Alvis) 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

State ex rel. Tucker v. Alvis, 89 N.E.2d 328, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 285, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 847 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The record discloses that on the 24th day of April, A. D. 1946, the [286]*286plaintiff was found guilty of murder in the first degree with a recommendation of mercy. The ground relied upon by the plaintiff for the relief sought is that none of the witnesses who testified against him at the trial was sworn. , The plaintiff testified that during the course of the trial his counsel questioned whether or not the witnesses had been sworn and the prosecutor answered in the affirmative. The plaintiff now insists, however, that none of the witnesses was sworn and for this reason he was denied due process of law and that he is entitled to his release. When .a defect such as alleged here is known at the time, the defect must be taken advantage of at once and the failure to do so is such acquiescence in the -testimony as will preclude objection after the verdict. See 28 R. C. L. Section 177, page 585. Since the ground upon which the relief is sought is inadequate it will not be necessary for us to pass upon the truth of the charge made.

The application will be denied.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur

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

OPINION

By THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The record discloses that on the 24th day of April, A. D. 1946, the [286]*286plaintiff was found guilty of murder in the first degree with a recommendation of mercy. The ground relied upon by the plaintiff for the relief sought is that none of the witnesses who testified against him at the trial was sworn. , The plaintiff testified that during the course of the trial his counsel questioned whether or not the witnesses had been sworn and the prosecutor answered in the affirmative. The plaintiff now insists, however, that none of the witnesses was sworn and for this reason he was denied due process of law and that he is entitled to his release. When .a defect such as alleged here is known at the time, the defect must be taken advantage of at once and the failure to do so is such acquiescence in the -testimony as will preclude objection after the verdict. See 28 R. C. L. Section 177, page 585. Since the ground upon which the relief is sought is inadequate it will not be necessary for us to pass upon the truth of the charge made.

The application will be denied.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 N.E.2d 328, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 285, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-tucker-v-alvis-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack