State v. McCoy

Citations

• 88 Ohio St. (N.S.) 447

Syllabus

<p>IIndictment charging shooting with intent to kill, etc.—Includes lesser offenses of assault, etc.—Court in charge to jury omits mention of certain lesser offenses—Of which accused may be found guilty—Judgment of conviction not reversible for courts omission, when—General exception to charge of trial court— Does not raise question of error, when—Criminal law.</p> <p>1. An indictment charging, in separate counts, shooting with intent to kill and shooting with intent to wound includes the lesser offenses of assault and battery and assault, and upon the trial of the accused upon such an indictment the jury may find the accused not guilty of shooting with intent to kill and not guilty of shooting with intent to wound, but guilty of assault and battery or an assault only.</p> <p>2. Where, upon the trial of a person charged by indictment with shooting with intent to kill and shooting with intent to wound, the court properly charges the jury upon all the issues in the case, except that it inadvertently omits to charge that the defendant might, if the evidence warrants, be found not guilty of shooting with intent to kill and not guilty of shooting with intent to wound, but guilty of assault and battery, and the court’s attention is not called to this omission, and no request to give such a charge is made, a judgment of conviction of the accused of shooting with intent to wound should not be reversed for such inadvertent omission of the court to so charge.</p> <p>3. A general exception to the charge of a trial court does not raise any question of error as to the omission of the court to give further correct instruction, but presents only questions of errors of law existing in the charge as given. (Columbus Railway Co. v. Ritter, 67 Ohio §t., S3, approved and followed.)</p>