Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0253-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 319
    VOLRICH v. STATE
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Butler Co.
    No. 278.
    Decided Nov. 2, 1925
    480. EVIDENCE — Written report purporting to be analysis of intoxicating liquor not good evidence because no opportunity is given for cross examination.
    Attorneys — Clinton H. Boyd, Middletown, for Volrich; Murphy & Joseph, Cincinnati, for State.
   PER CURIAM

John Volrich was tried for illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. The trial court admitted in evidence a written report purporting to be a chemical analysis of certain wine charged to have been in possession of Volrich.

This ease was originally tried in the court of the Mayor of the Village of Monroe; error was prosecuted to the Butler Common Pleas, which affirmed the judgment of the mayor’s court. Error was again prosecuted to the Court of Appeals which held:

In view of the fact that no opportunity was given Volrich to cross-examine the chemist making the analysis, admission of the report was prejudicial error.

Judgment reversed.