Home/Ohio Supreme Court/State v. Leigh

State v. Leigh

285 N.E.2d 333, 31 Ohio St. 2d 97, 60 Ohio Op. 2d 80, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 404
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 19, 1972
DocketNo. 71-578
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 285 N.E.2d 333 (State v. Leigh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Leigh, 285 N.E.2d 333, 31 Ohio St. 2d 97, 60 Ohio Op. 2d 80, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 404 (Ohio 1972).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We modify the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Appellant postulates his appeal upon (1) claiming that the suppression of evidence by the prosecution relating to ballistics tests would have been assistive to the jury in the determination of the penalty and (2) the infliction of the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions., There being no denial by the defendant as to participa[99]*99tion in the robbery, and no question raised as to the finding of gnilt, this appeal is limited to the question of the degree of the penalty.

The United States Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia (decided June 29, 1972), 33 L. Ed. 2d 346, has held that the carrying out of a death penalty imposed at the discretion of the trier of the facts constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment ’ ’ in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Under that holding, which we are required to follow, the infliction of any death penalty under the existing law of Ohio is now unconstitutional (with the possible exception of the taking of the life or attempting to take the life of the President, Vice-President, or a person in the line of succession to the presidency [R. C. 2901.09], or of the Governor or Lieutenant Governor [R. C. 2901.10], which statutes purport to impose a mandatory penalty of death).

Although the question of defendant’s guilt is not before us, we have reviewed the record of the proceedings in this case and find ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree.

Therefore, except as to the death sentence, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. With regard to the death sentence, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be modified and the sentence is reduced to life imprisonment, as prescribed in R. C. 2901.01.

Judgment accordingly.

O’Neill, C. J., Heebeet, Coeeigau, Steeít and Leach, JJ., concur. Beowh, J., not participating.

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

Related

State v. Halczyszak
496 N.E.2d 925 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986)
State v. Miller
361 N.E.2d 419 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1977)
Bean v. State of Nevada
410 F. Supp. 963 (D. Nevada, 1974)
State v. Rhodes Shields
Montana Supreme Court, 1974
State v. Rhodes
524 P.2d 1095 (Montana Supreme Court, 1974)
Mears v. State of Nevada
367 F. Supp. 84 (D. Nevada, 1973)
State v. Findley
317 N.E.2d 219 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1973)
Vargas v. Metzger
298 N.E.2d 600 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1973)
Hubbard v. State
274 So. 2d 298 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1973)
State v. Jackson
291 N.E.2d 432 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1972)
Bartholomey v. State
297 A.2d 696 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1972)
State v. Strozier
290 N.E.2d 177 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1972)
State v. Fairbanks
289 N.E.2d 352 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1972)
State v. Broadnax
287 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1972)
Edinger v. Metzger
290 N.E.2d 577 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1972)
State v. Tingler
285 N.E.2d 710 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 N.E.2d 333, 31 Ohio St. 2d 97, 60 Ohio Op. 2d 80, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-leigh-ohio-1972.