State v. Lucas

85 N.E.2d 154, 54 Ohio Law. Abs. 212, 39 Ohio Op. 519, 1949 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 231
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division
DecidedJanuary 20, 1949
DocketNo. 29561
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 85 N.E.2d 154 (State v. Lucas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Lucas, 85 N.E.2d 154, 54 Ohio Law. Abs. 212, 39 Ohio Op. 519, 1949 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 231 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1949).

Opinion

[213]*213OPINION AND DECISION

By BELT, J:

This cause was submitted to the Court on the questions presented by a plea in abatement to the indictment herein.

The indictment charges the Defendants, one of whom was at the times alleged therein a Commissioner of Franklin County, with conspiracy to defraud the State of Ohio. The bill of particulars filed by the Attorney General in response to a motion therefor alleges that the contracts referred to in the indictment were construction contracts entered into by and between Lucas Brothers, a partnership, of which Defendant Carl Lucas was a member, and the Board of Franklin County Commissioners, whereby said partnership contracted to erect certain housing units for the considerations therein set forth.

It was agreed by all parties in interest in this case that the housing units referred to in the contracts were to be constructed as emergency housing for veterans under the authority conferred by §§1078-62 to 1078-71, both inclusive, GC.

[214]*214The overt acts charged were the presentation for payment to the County Commissioners by the Defendant Carl Lucas of false and fraudulent statements of money due for work and labor performed under the contracts in question.

For a better understanding of the issues involved, the pertinent sections of the statutory law will be referred to and discussed together with a brief history of the case.

The so-called “Emergency Housing for Veterans” Act became effective August 28, 1946 and appropriates Six Million ($6,000,000.00) Dollars to be allocated to the political subdivisions of the State to provide immediate temporary emergency housing for veterans of World War II, and further provides that the moneys appropriated shall be distributed by the Auditor of State to the several counties of the State upon application by the County Commissioners in the ratio that the total population of the County bears to the total population of the State; that all moneys allocated to a County shall be placed in a special fund in the Treasury of the County to be known as the “County Veterans’ Housing Fund,” and that the same be expended only as provided in said act. The act further provides that the Commissioners may accept contributions to the fund or contribute thereto from County funds. The express limitations are that the County Commissioners are authorized to éxpend all or any part of the fund for immediate temporary emergency housing facilities for residents of the County, who are members of the Armed Forces of World War II. The only other provision worthy of mention is that any sum remaining to the credit of the fund of a County on the 31st day of December, 1949 shall be paid to the Treasurer of State and placed in the general revenue fund.

The last mentioned section is somewhat vague and the question arises: In the event contributions are máde to the fund by either individuals or the County, whether the whole of the balance, if any, shall be paid into the State Treasury? However, there is no showing in this case that any such contributions were made.

Secs. 13116-1 and 13116-2 GC, provide respectively as follows:

Sec. 13116-1 GC. “If two or more persons conspire to defraud the State of Ohio, or any other political sub-division thereof, in any manner, or for any purpose, and one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy upon convic[215]*215tion shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Sec. 13116-2 GC. “It shall be the duty of the attorney general of Ohio, and he shall have full power and authority to prosecute any person for conspiring to defraud the state of Ohio in violation of the provisions of §12810-1

The above-quoted sections, known as the conspiracy statutes, were enacted in 1939 and became effective September 1 • of that year. Prior thereto Ohio had no statute making conspiracies, as such, criminal.

The history of this legislation is well-known by the members of the Ohio Bar and grew out of the controversy commonly known as the “Hot Mix” cases in which certain highway contractors were publicly charged with defrauding the State of Ohio in the construction and repair of. the State Highway system. Upon investigation it was found that Ohio had no criminal statute adequate to deal with such situations, resulting in the enactment of the conspiracy statute.

The conspiracy to commit a crime is an entirely different offense from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy. It is not a substantive offense, but essentially a crime of intent. It does not merge in the completed offense. The unlawful combination and confederacy constitute the essential element of criminal conspiracy rather than the overt acts done in pursuance thereof, and neither the success nor failure oi criminal conspiracies is determinative of the guilt or innocence of the conspirators. Thus, under the act, an entirely new offense in Ohio was recognized and punishment therefor provided.

Under the authority conferred in Section 2 of the act, the Attorney General of Ohio requested the Common Pleas Court [216]*216of Franklin County to cause to be impanelled a special Grand Jury to investigate alleged conspiracies to defraud the State of Ohio. In response thereto a special Grand Jury was duly impanelled, charged as to its duty within the limitations set out in said §13116-2 GC, and proceeded to return the indictment under consideration, together with a number of other indictments charging embezzlement and the presentation of false and fraudulent claims to the Board of County Commissioners, made a crime by §13105 GC. Pleas in abatement to the indictments charging the presentation of false and fraudulent claims and embezzlement were sustained by this Court for the reason, in the opinion of the Court, that such special Grand Jury was not authorized or empowered to present an indictment charging a crime other than the crime of conspiracy to defraud the State under the limitations contained in §13116-2 GC. That section seems to retain sole jurisdiction in the law enforcement officers of the Counties to prosecute conspiracies pertaining to County funds or funds of any political sub-division of a County, the State being limited solely to investigations and presentment of indictments where State funds only are involved and then only in cases of conspiracy.

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

Related

United States v. Licavoli
725 F.2d 1040 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
DeBose v. People
488 P.2d 69 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 N.E.2d 154, 54 Ohio Law. Abs. 212, 39 Ohio Op. 519, 1949 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lucas-ohctcomplfrankl-1949.