Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0645-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 673
    CHATFIELD, Jr., v. STATE ex
    No. 18642.
    Supreme Court
    ON PETITION IN ERROR
    Error to the Court of Appeals, Hamilton County.
    Docketed June 7, 1924.
    2 Abs. 404.
    333. CRIMINAL LAW — Does the amendment to 13677 GC. effect crimes alleged to have been committed prior to April 24, 1923?
    Attorneys — Dinsmore, Shohl & Sawyer, for Chatfield; Chas. B. Bell, Pros. Atty., for State ex.
   Epitomized Opinion

Chatfield and Zeazell were indicted, charged with embezzlement alleged to have been committed Feb. 13, 1923. They were tried jointly in the Hamilton Common Pleas, and on Jan. 31, 1924, were convicted. Chatfield was sentenced to the penitentiary.

Chatfield claims error on the ground that 13677 GC. provides that persons indicted jointly for a felony shall be tried separately.

That the embezzlement was alleged to have been committed on Feb. 13, 1923.

That the amendment to the above section, allowing the court to determine whether those indicted jointly shall be tried jointly or separately, was not passed until April 24, 1923.

That the said amended statute as applied to this crime is an post facto law within the restrictions imposed by Art. 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution of the U. S. and a retroactive law within the provisions of Sec. 28, Art. 11, of the Ohio Constitution.