Cromley v. State

Citations

• 26 Ohio C.C. Dec. 209
• 19 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 526
• 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 263

Syllabus

<p>ASSAULT — CRIMINAL LAW.</p> <p>1. Omitting Material Element in Stating Law to Jury Erroneous though Correctly Stated in Earlier Proposition.</p> <p>It is reversible error to state a proposition of law incorrectly in the charge to the jury by leaving out one material element, notwithstanding the same proposition was correctly stated in an earlier part of the charge.</p> <p>2. Authorizing Verdict upon Assault with Dangerous Instrument Erroneous if Count Makes no Such Charge.</p> <p>It is also error to so charge the jury as to authorize them to return a verdict of guilty “under the third count of the indictment if they should find simply that the defendant made the assault with a dangerous instrument,” when the third count of the indictment contained no charge of assault made with a dangerous instrument.</p> <p>3. Abiding Conviction of Defendant's Guilt not Sufficient to Satisfy Mind Beyond Reasonable Doubt.</p> <p>To charge a jury that “if you can say that you have an abiding conviction of defendant’s guilt, then you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt,'’ is error for the reason that the statement does not contain all the requirements as to the degree of evidence necessary to satisfy the mind beyond a reasonable doubt.</p> <p>[Syllabus by the court.]</p>