Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0452-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ALLREAD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 522
    PESKIND and KARP v. STATE
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 6267.
    Decided March 20, 1926
    303. CONVERSION — Where conversion, is charged, in violation of 12472 GC., intent to defraud is a necessary element.
    Attorneys — Boyd, Cannon, Brooks and Wick-ham; Moore, Mahon, Miller and Moore; James-L. Lind for Peskind and Karp; all of Cleveland. C. C. Crabbe, Joseph Eagleson, Columbus, Chas. Higley and David E. Green, Cleveland, for State. John A. Cline, Cleveland, for Karp.
   ALLREAD, J.

Solomon Peskind and Benjamin Karp were tried in Cuyahoga Common Pleas under section 12472 GC., charged with Converting assets of the Municipal Sav. & Loan Assn., with intent to defraud said company. The court stated in his charge that the jury may consider that the acts themselves carry with them the intent to defraud and that intent need not be proven. Peskind and Karp excepted-to this charge and prosecuted error. The court of appeals held:

1. While section 12472 GC. does not specifically provide that intent to defraud is one of the elements of the crime, Ohio Supreme Court in 91 OS. 132 held that such intent is a necessary element.
2. The charge of the court eliminating the intent from consideration of the jury is therefor erroneous.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.