Case ID: ohio-law-abs_6/html/0402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAMILTON, PJ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COVERSON v. STATE.
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
    Thos. J. Howard and Jas. G. Stewart, Cincinnati, for Coverson.
    Chas. P. Taft, 2nd, Pros. Atty., Carl E. Bas-ler and John Clippinger, Cincinnati, for State.
    480. EVIDENCE — 803 Murder — 333 Criminal Law.
    1. Where witness, in trial for murder by killing police officer, has testified that deceased, in going toward defendant, stated “I am the law,” permitting such witness to explain meaning of such statement, not error.
    2. Where conviction is justified, under evidence, on, first count of indictment, error, in evidence, as to second count, not prejudicial.
   HAMILTON, PJ.

1. Where defendant was charged with killing of a police officer while in discharge of his duty, witness having .testified that deceased in going toward defendant stated “I am the law,” permitting him to answer to question as to what was understood in the colored community by the expression that it meant that he was an officer of the law, was not error as permitting witness to give a conclusion.

2. Where defendant was charged with murder with malice, and in second count of indictment with murdering a policeman while in discharge of his duty, error, if any, in permitting witness to explain meaning among colored people of defendant’s victim’s statement “I am the law,” was harmless, in view of conviction, justified under evidence, on first count charging murder with malice.

(Mills and Cushing, JJ., concur.)

For reference to full opinion, see Omnibus Index, last page, this issue.