Patterson v. State
Citations
- 96 Ohio St. (N.S.) 90
Syllabus
<p>Charge of criminal conspiracy — For larceny of specific, separately owned automobiles — Each theft a distinct and separate offense — Acquittal for one offense — Defendant not twice in jeopardy — By trial for theft of another—Criminal law — Evidence.</p> <p>1. Where the accused has engaged with another in a criminal conspiracy or plan having for its purpose the larceny of specific automobiles belonging to separate owners, and in pursuance of such plan the confederate steals such automobiles at divers times and places, each theft constitutes a distinct and separate offense, and an acquittal of one does not place him twice in jeopardy on the trial of the other.</p> <p>2. Upon the trial of the accused upon an indictment for the larceny of W’s automobile, where the state relies for conviction upon proof of such criminal plan to steal various automobiles, belonging to W, C, and others, and offers evidence of such criminal plan and the larcenies of cars other than charged in the indictment, the fact that the accused at a former trial had been acquitted of the larceny of C’s car does not conclude the state from proving that such plan embraced the larceny of C’s car, although the evidence offered at such second trial was substantially the same as that produced by the state on the former trial which resulted in a verdict of acquittal. Nor can the record of such former acquittal be offered by the accused either as a bar to the offense charged in the second indictment or as an adjudication of fact that the accused was innocent of the theft of C’s car, and that the criminal plan did hot embrace the larceny thereof.</p> <p>3. Where evidence relating to the larceny of C’s car committed in pursuance of such criminal plan is offered by the state, such evidence is competent. And where the accused objected to such evidence solely because he had been tried and acquitted of such larceny but made no objection otherwise and made no request that the same should be limited to the purpose
Judges: Donahue, Jones, Matthias, Newman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.