State v. Coleman

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Coleman

186 N.E.2d 93, 91 Ohio Law. Abs. 191, 1962 Ohio App. LEXIS 740

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 9, 1962

DocketNo. 26038

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 N.E.2d 93 (State v. Coleman) 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 v. Coleman, 186 N.E.2d 93, 91 Ohio Law. Abs. 191, 1962 Ohio App. LEXIS 740 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, James N. Coleman, was found guilty by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas on an indictment charging three counts of burglary and three counts of grand larceny and appeals from the judgment entered thereon to this court on questions of law.

A careful reading of the bill of exceptions discloses ample evidence to support the conclusions (1) that the police officers had probable cause and reasonable grounds to believe that the law was being violated to justify searching the wife’s automobile without a search warrant, and (2) that the search of the storeroom in no way violated defendant’s rights, the defendant having relinquished occupancy of the same prior thereto. We also determine and hold that the defendant was accorded a fair trial and that no error prejudicial to his substantial rights intervened in the trial of the cause.

U. S. v. One 1941 Oldsmobile Sedan, 158 Fed. (2d), 818; Carroll v. U. S., 267 U. S., 132; Abel v. U. S., 362 U. S., 217; Section 2945.83, Eevised Code.

Judgment affirmed.

Exceptions. Order see journal.

Kovachy, P. J., Skeel and Hurd, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, James N. Coleman, was found guilty by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas on an indictment charging three counts of burglary and three counts of grand larceny and appeals from the judgment entered thereon to this court on questions of law.

A careful reading of the bill of exceptions discloses ample evidence to support the conclusions (1) that the police officers had probable cause and reasonable grounds to believe that the law was being violated to justify searching the wife’s automobile without a search warrant, and (2) that the search of the storeroom in no way violated defendant’s rights, the defendant having relinquished occupancy of the same prior thereto. We also determine and hold that the defendant was accorded a fair trial and that no error prejudicial to his substantial rights intervened in the trial of the cause.

U. S. v. One 1941 Oldsmobile Sedan, 158 Fed. (2d), 818; Carroll v. U. S., 267 U. S., 132; Abel v. U. S., 362 U. S., 217; Section 2945.83, Eevised Code.

Judgment affirmed.

Exceptions. Order see journal.

Kovachy, P. J., Skeel and Hurd, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 N.E.2d 93, 91 Ohio Law. Abs. 191, 1962 Ohio App. LEXIS 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coleman-ohioctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack