Berman v. State

Citations

• 25 Ohio C.C. Dec. 386
• 16 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 106
• 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 350

Syllabus

<p>ARSON — CRIMINAL LAW — NEW TRIAL.</p> <p>1. Variance Between Indictment and Proof as to Name of Owner of Building Burned not Fatal in Arson.</p> <p>In a trial for arson where the indictment charged the accused with burning the property of “B. Mirsky,” and the evidence showed that it was owned by “Harry Mirsky,” it is not error for the. court to charge that if the jury found that the person named in the indictment as “B. Mirsky” was the same person as the “Harry Mirsky” who owned the building, the variance would not be fatal.</p> <p>2. Proof That Building Burned was the Same one Admitted by Accused in Arson Confession Sufficient.</p> <p>In order to authorize the introduction in evidence of an admission by the accused that he was guilty of arson, it is sufficient to show that the building he confessed burning was in fact burned at the time charged.</p> <p>3. Trial Judge's Certificate to Affidavits for New Trial That Affidavits in Question Constituted all the Evidence on Motion Hearing.</p> <p>In order that affidavits used on a motion for a new trial may be considered by a reviewing court, there must be a certificate of the trial judge that the affidavits in question were all the evidence introduced on the hearing of the motion.</p> <p>[Syllabus by the court.]</p>