Case ID: ohio-law-abs_7/html/0140-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBINSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BROWNING v STATE
    Ohio Supreme Court
    No 21082.
    Decided Feb 20, 1929
   Syllabus by

ROBINSON, J.

TRIAL

(590 J3f) The word “men”, used in Section 13568, General Code, was there used in a generic sense rather than a specific sense, and not to distinguish between men and women.

Women may be summoned as grand jurors under that section.

(590 J3c) A person who has been convicted of an offense in another state of the United States, the penalty for which offense is imprisonment in a penitentiary of such state, and who has served his sentence and has not received a general pardon fi’om the Governor of such state, is not thereby disqualified as a juror in this state, where the crime of which he was charged and convicted in such other state would not, if it had been committed in this state, have required an imposition of a sentence to one of the penitentiaries of this state.

CRIMINAL LAW

(190 I) The several counts of an indictment containing, more than one count are not interdependent. A verdict responding to a designated count will be construed in the light of the count designated, and no other. An inconsistency in a verdict does not arise out of inconsistent responses to different counts, but only arises out of inconsistent responses to the same count. (Griffin v State, 18 Ohio St, 438 approved and followed.)

Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Marshall, CJ, not participating.