Case ID: ohio-np-ns_26/html/0242-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Caldwell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES.
    Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County.
    Julius Henderson v. State of Ohio.
    Decided, May 28, 1926.
    
      Criminal Law — Conviction Ought not to be Upheld, where Based on the Testimony of Financially Interested Witnesses.
    
    A conviction will not be permitted to stand where the prosecuting witnesses were all financially interested in the outcome by reason of the fact that their fees depended on conviction, and the defendant stoutly denied the charge and there were circumstances which supported his testimony.
    
      Charles S. Elston, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Charles M. Price, for defendant in error.
   Caldwell, J.

This is a criminal proceeding and guilt can not be found unless the evidence establish it beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case the defendant stoutly maintained his innocence, and the facts and circumstaces are that the prosecuting witnesses were all financially interested in the. outcome— that is to say, in a finding of guilty. Indeed their fees depended on a conviction. In weighing the' evidence I can not but feel that no man should be deprived of his liberty where it depends upon that character of evidence alone, particularly so in a case where the defendant denies the charge, and there are circumstances that support his tesimony.

It would seem to the court that the personal liberty of a citizen is a thing too sacred to be jeopardized by the financial interests of an accuser in a case where there is no other evidence supporting the prosecution. Such proceedings are contrary to the principles of American justice, and if persisted in can not but breed contempt for the law and for those charged with its proper enforcement.

The evidence and circumstances, in the opinion of the court, do not warrant or justify a conviction. It is enough to say that the evidence, in the opinion of the court did not warrant a conviction, and the court below should have so found.

The case is reversed and remanded.