From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weimer v. State

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 15, 1928
160 N.E. 623 (Ohio 1928)

Opinion

No. 20915

Decided February 15, 1928.

Supreme Court — Dismissals — No debatable constitutional question involved — Defendant not entitled to jury trial where imprisonment not part of penalty — Intoxicating liquors.

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Greene county.

ON MOTION to dismiss.

Mr. F.L. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. Carl Marshall, prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.


This cause has been filed in this court under claim of right, upon the ground that a constitutional question is involved. It is only necessary to inquire whether the constitutional question is an unsettled one. Weimer was convicted in the probate court of Greene county, Ohio, for violation of the state prohibition laws. Imprisonment was not a part of the penalty. It is contended that, by virtue of the provisions of Section 10 of Article I of the state Constitution he is entitled to jury trial. A motion to dismiss the petition in error was filed by the state. The motion to dismiss must be sustained upon the authority of Work v. State, 2 Ohio St. 296, 59 Am. Dec., 671; Inwood v. State, 42 Ohio St. 186; State ex rel. Smith v. Smith, 69 Ohio St. 196, 68 N.E. 1044; State v. Borham, 72 Ohio St. 358, 74 N.E. 220; Hoffrichter v. State, 102 Ohio St. 65, 130 N.E. 157; Stiess v. State, 103 Ohio St. 33, 132 N.E. 85; Decker v. State, 113 Ohio St. 512, 150 N.E. 74; Sheward v. State, 117 Ohio St. 568, 159 N.E. 831, decided December 28, 1927.

Motion sustained; cause dismissed.

MARSHALL, C.J., DAY, ALLEN, KINKADE, ROBINSON and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weimer v. State

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 15, 1928
160 N.E. 623 (Ohio 1928)
Case details for

Weimer v. State

Case Details

Full title:WEIMER v. THE STATE OF OHIO

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Feb 15, 1928

Citations

160 N.E. 623 (Ohio 1928)
160 N.E. 623

Citing Cases

State v. Walker

While this is a misdemeanor case, the facts are not in the same category as those cases where an accused is…