Selvaggio v. State

Citations

• 25 Ohio C.C. Dec. 139
• 19 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 88
• 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 238

Syllabus

<p>CRIMINAL LAW — HOMICIDE.</p> <p>1. Juror’s Attitude as to Insisting on Recommendation of Mercy in Capital Case if Verdict Based on Circumstantial Evidence Properly Ascertained by State in Examination Voir Dire.</p> <p>In an examination as to the qualification of jurors to sit in a trial for murder in the first degree, it is not error for the state to ascertain by proper questions whether a prospective juror would insist on a recommendation of mercy, in the event that the verdict were to be based on circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>2. Refusal to Require Election by State in First Degree Murder Between Count Charging Deliberate and Premeditated Malice and Another in Perpetration of Robbery, Held not Erroneous.</p> <p>Where the crime is charged in two counts — the first that the homicide was committed with deliberate and premeditated malice, and the second that it was committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of robbery — it is not error to overrule a motion to require the state to elect upon which count it will go to trial.</p> <p>3. Evidence Accounting for Certain Parties and Disappearance at Occasion of Murder Inextricably Interwoven With Crime, Held Proper.</p> <p>Evidence accounting for certain parties, and for their disappearance on the occasion of the murder charged in the indictment, is competent where so inextricably interwoven with the crime that without it a wrong suspicion might arise as to who was the perpetrator.</p> <p>[Syllabus by the court.]</p>