State v. Davis

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Davis

29 Ohio Law Rep. 67

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 29, 1964

Docket38824

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ohio Law Rep. 67 (State v. Davis) 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. Davis, 29 Ohio Law Rep. 67 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Taft, Chief Justice.

1. Where there has been an illegal search and seizure of evidence tending to incriminate an accused and such accused and his counsel know about such search and seizure in ample time to prepare and file a pretrial motion to suppress such evidence, a failure to do so will amount to a waiver by the accused of his right to object to admission of that evidence against him.

2. Where counsel for an accused objects to admission of a confession on the specific ground that it was not voluntarily made and there is no evidence to support a conclusion that it was not volun-traily made, the accused cannot, after trial, successfully maintain that the court erred in overruling the objection by then relying upon a valid ground for his objection which was not called to the court’s attention at a time when such error could have been avoided and corrected.

Judgment affirmed.

Zimmerman, Matthias, Griffith and Herbert, JJ., concur. O’Neill and Gibson, JJ., dissent.

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

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Taft, Chief Justice.

1. Where there has been an illegal search and seizure of evidence tending to incriminate an accused and such accused and his counsel know about such search and seizure in ample time to prepare and file a pretrial motion to suppress such evidence, a failure to do so will amount to a waiver by the accused of his right to object to admission of that evidence against him.

2. Where counsel for an accused objects to admission of a confession on the specific ground that it was not voluntarily made and there is no evidence to support a conclusion that it was not volun-traily made, the accused cannot, after trial, successfully maintain that the court erred in overruling the objection by then relying upon a valid ground for his objection which was not called to the court’s attention at a time when such error could have been avoided and corrected.

Judgment affirmed.

Zimmerman, Matthias, Griffith and Herbert, JJ., concur. O’Neill and Gibson, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ohio Law Rep. 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-ohioctapp-1964.