Wertenberger v. State

Citations

• 99 Ohio St. (N.S.) 353

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Charge to jury at close of evidence — Duty of court discretionary — Section 13673, General Code — Sexual intercourse with pupil — Section 13030, General Code — Instruction as to corroborating evidence erroneous, when — Evidence —■ Error to admit affidavit filed before magistrate — Or affidavit charging bastardy.</p> <p>1. Under Section 13675, General Code, the court is authorized hut not required at the conclusion of the evidence, upon the request of the state or of the accused, to charge the jury before argument upon the points of law requested and pertinent to the case. (Blackburn v. State, 23 Ohio St., 146, approved and followed.)</p> <p>2. In a prosecution under Section 13030, General Code, a charge, “Though you are advised by the court not to convict the defendant upon the uncorroborated testimony of I. M., yet it is not necessary that the crime charged be proven independently of the testimony of said I. M., or that the testimony of I. M. be corroborated in every particular, but it is only necessary that there be circumstantial or direct evidence in addition to the testimony of I. M. tending to connect the defendant with the crime charged and to prove some of the material facts testified to by I. M.,” is subject to the interpretation that a corroboration as to a material fact other than the wrongful intercourse of the accused with the prosecuting witness would warrant a conviction, and is therefore erroneous.</p> <p>3. In the trial of a criminal case the admission of the affidavit charging the offense before the magistrate as evidence in behalf of the state is erroneous.</p> <p>4. In a prosecution under Section 13030, General Code, it is error to admit as evidence in behalf of the state an affidavit charging the accused with being the father of the bastard child of the pupil.</p>