State ex rel. Wenclewicz v. Bereda

Ohio Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Wenclewicz v. Bereda

8 Ohio Law. Abs. 581

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 22, 1930

DocketNo 982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 581 (State ex rel. Wenclewicz v. Bereda) 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. Wenclewicz v. Bereda, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 581 (Ohio Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLREAD, J.

According to the testimony of the defendant he was acting merely as a friend in suggesting this plan to the complainant. We cannot escape the conclusion that this note is in fact, under the circumstances here, a statement tending to show guilt of the defendant and is sufficient to require this Court to reverse the judgment on that ground. We cannot conceive of the defendant writing this note if he was in fact innocent and cannot conceive that he would undertake the responsibility which he must have known he was assuming by having the complainant follow the directions therein contained. He must have known that he was advising a course, which, if carried out, would make him, along with the complainant, guilty of a serious offense against the laws of the state. Analyzing this statement and especially the last clause, we cannot escape the conclusion that the defendant in writing the note admitted that he was in the confidence of the complainant and must thereupon have been responsible for the complainant’s trouble.

We have reached the conclusion that in view of this testimony this Court is bound to hold that the verdict of the jury and judgment of the trial court are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

The judgment of the trial court must, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Kunkle, PJ, and Hornbeck, J, concur.

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

ALLREAD, J.

According to the testimony of the defendant he was acting merely as a friend in suggesting this plan to the complainant. We cannot escape the conclusion that this note is in fact, under the circumstances here, a statement tending to show guilt of the defendant and is sufficient to require this Court to reverse the judgment on that ground. We cannot conceive of the defendant writing this note if he was in fact innocent and cannot conceive that he would undertake the responsibility which he must have known he was assuming by having the complainant follow the directions therein contained. He must have known that he was advising a course, which, if carried out, would make him, along with the complainant, guilty of a serious offense against the laws of the state. Analyzing this statement and especially the last clause, we cannot escape the conclusion that the defendant in writing the note admitted that he was in the confidence of the complainant and must thereupon have been responsible for the complainant’s trouble.

We have reached the conclusion that in view of this testimony this Court is bound to hold that the verdict of the jury and judgment of the trial court are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

The judgment of the trial court must, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Kunkle, PJ, and Hornbeck, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Ohio Law. Abs. 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-wenclewicz-v-bereda-ohioctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack