Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0613-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KINKADE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 642
    THIEKEN v. STATE
    Ohio Appeals, Sixth District, Lucas County
    No. 1339.
    Decided June 25, 1923
    This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
    PXTON-SUPPORT — (1) Technical errors in court’s charge — (2) Verdict not manifestly against weight of evidence.
    Attorneys — DeGalley & DeGaTley, for Thieken; Roy S. Stuart, Pros., for State.
   KINKADE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Thie'ken was indicted for non-support of his illegitimate minor child. The jury found the defendant guilty upon trial. In the court’s charge the court in speaking' of the weight that the jury should give to the evidence of any one witness used the word “his” instead of “his or her.” The defendant claimed that this was error inasmuch as the prosecuting witness was a woman. The accused also claimed that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence. In sustaining the verdict of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

1. As the court was speaking generally of the case and was referring to all the evidence in the case, no error was committed by .the omission of the word “her.”

2.Before the verdict will be set aside by a reviewing court, it must be clearly against the weight of che evidence. As the verdict was supported 'by some evidence it cannot be said that it was manifestly igainst the weight of the evidence.