State v. Loudermill

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Loudermill

31 Ohio Law Rep. 9

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 7, 1965

Docket38663

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Ohio Law Rep. 9 (State v. Loudermill) 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. Loudermill, 31 Ohio Law Rep. 9 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Schneider, Judge.

Where the evidence in a criminal case would support a finding by the jury of guilt of a lesser offense included in the offense for which defendant was indicted and tried, the refusal of the trial court to charge upon that lesser included offense is error prejudicial to the rights of defendant. (Paragraph two of the syllabus of State v. Patterson, 172 OhioSt. 319, 16 O.O.(2d) 116, overruled; Freeman v. State, 119 OhioSt. 250, and State v. Muskus, 158 OhioSt. 276, 49 O.O. 122, approved and followed.)

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Herbert and Brown, JJ., concur. Zimmerman, Matthias and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.

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

Schneider, Judge.

Where the evidence in a criminal case would support a finding by the jury of guilt of a lesser offense included in the offense for which defendant was indicted and tried, the refusal of the trial court to charge upon that lesser included offense is error prejudicial to the rights of defendant. (Paragraph two of the syllabus of State v. Patterson, 172 OhioSt. 319, 16 O.O.(2d) 116, overruled; Freeman v. State, 119 OhioSt. 250, and State v. Muskus, 158 OhioSt. 276, 49 O.O. 122, approved and followed.)

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Herbert and Brown, JJ., concur. Zimmerman, Matthias and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Ohio Law Rep. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-loudermill-ohio-1965.