Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0102-01.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. 130
    CROWE et v. STATE
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 7054.
    Decided June 14, 1926
    Judges Mauck, Middleton & Sayre, 4th Dist., sitting.
    480. EVIDENCE — Where defendant, on direct examination, stated that he was arrested and convicted four or five times; the fact that on cross examination the character of his offenses were revealed to the jury does not entitle him to complain.
    First Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — J. T. Cassidy for Crowe; E. C. Stanton for State; both of Cleveland.
   BY THE COURT.

Edward Crowe was convicted of the offense of burglary in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas. Error proceedings were instituted in which he complained of his cross examination by counsel for the State. In his direct examination, he had stated that he had been arrested and convicted four or five times, and he was asked on cross examination if he had not been -convicted of five distinct offenses, naming each in separate questions, he answering in the affirmative as to four of them and not making any reply as to the fifth question. The Court of Appeals held:

1. There was no error in the cross examina-

tion merely showing that he was telling the truth, when he made the statement on direct examination that he had been convicted four or five times. >

2. The fact that by the cross examination the character of his offenses was revealed to the jury, is not anything of which Crowe can complain.

3. The action of the court in overruling the motion to adjourn the case until two witnesses were called is assigned as error.

4. There is nothing in the record to show what these witnesses would have testified to had they been present; and in expecting to prove that the screen door of the store where the burglary was attempted, swung to the left was of no consequence in the ease.

Judgment affirmed.

(Mauck, PJ., and Middleton & Sayre, J.T., concur.)