State v. Solomon

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Solomon

117 N.E.2d 714, 66 Ohio Law. Abs. 481, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 945

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 1952

DocketNo. 4628

StatusPublished

This text of 117 N.E.2d 714 (State v. Solomon) 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. Solomon, 117 N.E.2d 714, 66 Ohio Law. Abs. 481, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 945 (Ohio Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By WISEMAN, J.

This is a law appeal from the Municipal Court of Columbus from a conviction on a charge of selling intoxicating iiquor without a license.

In response to a complaint a police officer called at defendant’s residence and asked the defendant whether she hed any whiskey; the defendant stated that she did not have any whiskey; then the officer asked the defendant to get the whiskey for him and gave her money; she then stated she would get the whiskey for him; whereupon she left the residence and in about five to ten minutes thereafter returned with the whiskey and delivered it to the police officer and, also, the change.

[482]*482Where the evidence shows that the defendant delivered the whiskey and accepted the money therefor upon the solicitation of the purchaser, who was a police officer, a strong inference arises that the defendant made the sale, and the conviction will not be set aside on the ground that defendant acted as an agent for the purchaser. Johnson v. State, 77 S. W. (Tex.) 225; State v. Turner, 83 Kan. 183, 109 P. 983; State v. Russell, 6 Pen. 573 (Del.), 69 A. 839; Ledbetter v. State, 143 Ala. 52, 38 So., 836; Wiley v. State, 74 Miss. 727, 21 So. 797.

The fact that a police officer made the purchase does not constitute entrapment under the law of Ohio. State v. Miller, 85 Oh Ap 376; State v. Schubert, 80 Oh Ap 132; Davis v. State, 26 Oh Ap 340; State v. Foster, 75 N. E. (2d) 214; Vol. 12, O. Jur. page 80, Sec. 38. See also Vol. 15 Am. Jur. page 24; Vol. 22 C. J. S. Sec. 45, pp. 99, 102.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record the judgment is affirmed.

HORNBECK, PJ, MILLER, J, concur.

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

OPINION

By WISEMAN, J.

This is a law appeal from the Municipal Court of Columbus from a conviction on a charge of selling intoxicating iiquor without a license.

In response to a complaint a police officer called at defendant’s residence and asked the defendant whether she hed any whiskey; the defendant stated that she did not have any whiskey; then the officer asked the defendant to get the whiskey for him and gave her money; she then stated she would get the whiskey for him; whereupon she left the residence and in about five to ten minutes thereafter returned with the whiskey and delivered it to the police officer and, also, the change.

[482]*482Where the evidence shows that the defendant delivered the whiskey and accepted the money therefor upon the solicitation of the purchaser, who was a police officer, a strong inference arises that the defendant made the sale, and the conviction will not be set aside on the ground that defendant acted as an agent for the purchaser. Johnson v. State, 77 S. W. (Tex.) 225; State v. Turner, 83 Kan. 183, 109 P. 983; State v. Russell, 6 Pen. 573 (Del.), 69 A. 839; Ledbetter v. State, 143 Ala. 52, 38 So., 836; Wiley v. State, 74 Miss. 727, 21 So. 797.

The fact that a police officer made the purchase does not constitute entrapment under the law of Ohio. State v. Miller, 85 Oh Ap 376; State v. Schubert, 80 Oh Ap 132; Davis v. State, 26 Oh Ap 340; State v. Foster, 75 N. E. (2d) 214; Vol. 12, O. Jur. page 80, Sec. 38. See also Vol. 15 Am. Jur. page 24; Vol. 22 C. J. S. Sec. 45, pp. 99, 102.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record the judgment is affirmed.

HORNBECK, PJ, MILLER, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 N.E.2d 714, 66 Ohio Law. Abs. 481, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-solomon-ohioctapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack