Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0750-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BY THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 763
    KNOLL v. STATE
    Ohio Appeals, 2d District, Darke County
    No. 183.
    Decided May 9, 1923
    82. CHARGE TO JURY.
    Charge must be considered as a whole, and when so considered should not be misleading — Accused not entitled to a transcript of the evidence of prosecuting witness'.
    Attorneys — M. B. Trainer, for Knoll; O. J. Myers, for State.
   BY THE COURT.

Epitomized Opinion

Knoll was charged, tried and convicted of grand larceny. Charge of the court in reference to the defence of an alibi is assigned an error. The court in one part of his charge said that the evidence must be such as to render it impossible that the prisoner could have committed the act. But in another paprt it said that it is sufficient if all the evidence in the case raises a reasonable doubt of his presence. Knoll also complained because he was not furnished with a transcript of the prosecuting witness. In affirming the judgment, the Court of Appeals held:

1. “When the entire charge upon this subject is considered as a whole, we do not think the charge could be misleading.”

2. “We think under the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State v. Rhoades, 81 OS. 397, that the plaintiff in error was not entitled to a transcript of such evidence.”