Wild v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Wild v. State

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 300

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 1923

DocketNo. 4572

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 300 (Wild v. State) 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

Wild v. State, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 300 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion

Wild, a Cleveland city policeman, was convicted in the lower court of receiving stolen property, the only testimony offered by the state being that of one Fraser, who was convicted of receiving the same property. In a hearing before the Director of Public Safety of Cleveland, Fraser testified that Wild had nothing to do with the matter, that testimony being taken in shorthand by a competent court reporter. In the trial in common pleas court Fraser contradicted his former testimony and denied having-made the statements attributed to him and contained in the court reporter’s notes. The Court of Appeals being of the opinion that Fraser committed perjury on one of the occasions mentioned, held:

1. A conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of an admitted perjurer is manifestly against the weight of the credible testimony, there being no corroborative circumstances, and such conviction is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion

Wild, a Cleveland city policeman, was convicted in the lower court of receiving stolen property, the only testimony offered by the state being that of one Fraser, who was convicted of receiving the same property. In a hearing before the Director of Public Safety of Cleveland, Fraser testified that Wild had nothing to do with the matter, that testimony being taken in shorthand by a competent court reporter. In the trial in common pleas court Fraser contradicted his former testimony and denied having-made the statements attributed to him and contained in the court reporter’s notes. The Court of Appeals being of the opinion that Fraser committed perjury on one of the occasions mentioned, held:

1. A conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of an admitted perjurer is manifestly against the weight of the credible testimony, there being no corroborative circumstances, and such conviction is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wild-v-state-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack