Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0492-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 588
    BISCOTTI v. STATE
    No. 19845.
    Supreme Court
    Motion for leave to file.
    Dock. May 26, 1926.
    650. INTENT — Is it necessary under 12433 GC. that an indictment charging an accused with arson charging the intent to commit the crime ?
    Attorneys — M. A. Picciano and W. L. Brooker, Cleveland, for Pltf.; E. C. Stanton, Cleveland, for Deft.
   Thomas Biscotti was tried and convicted in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas of Arson.

The indictment of “intent” and after the accused was found guilty of attempted arson a demurrer was filed to the indictment on the ground that the element of “intent” must be charged in order to state facts sufficient to constitute the crime.

The judgment of conviction of “attempted” of arson of the Common Pleas was affirmed by the Appeals.

Biscotti in the Supreme Court contends:

1. That the crime of arson cannot be committed without “intent”.

2. That the indictment was not sufficient because “intent” was not charged.