Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/271-n-2d-839-621671799
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:29:30+00:00

Document:
Party Name: The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. BOLAN, Appellee.
Attorney: John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., and Harvey R. Monck, Cleveland, for appellant. Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Harvey R. Monck, for appellant., Mr. Bernard Berkman, Mr. Q. Albert Corsi and Mr. Nancy C. Schuster, for appellee.
Judge Panel: C. WILLIAM O'NEILL, C. J., and SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, DUNCAN, CORRIGAN and STERN, JJ., concur.
Where, pursuant to R.C. § 2935.041, an employee of a merchant has detained a person whom he has probable cause to believe has unlawfully taken items offered for sale by the mercantile establishment, an admission or confession made during such detention is not rendered inadmissible by the failure of such employee to fully explain to such detained person those constitutional rights set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 694.
On December 7, 1968, defendant-appellee, Erwin Bolan, a 13-year-old boy, was observed by a security officer of the May Company taking a pair of gloves from the glove counter. He followed the boy to the top of the escalator, where he then apprehended him and took him to the security office.
The gloves were not introduced in evidence by the state, nor did the state have them available at the hearing.
The Juvenile Court adjudged defendant a delinquent minor and sentenced him to the Cleveland Boys School, but suspended the commitment and placed him on probation.
This cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., and Harvey R. Monck, Cleveland, for appellant.
Bernard Berkman, Q. Albert Corsi, Cleveland, and Nancy C. Shuster, for appellee.
'to require' the actual production of the gloves at trial; (2) whether the failure of the security officer to give all of the warnings set out in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, renders his testimony as to any admissions or confessions made by defendant, while detained pursuant to R.C. § 2935.041, inadmissible in evidence; and (3) whether, in any event, the admission in evidence of statements made by the defendant to the security officer was 'harmless error' within the scope of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, and Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284.

References: v. 
 § 2935
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2935
 v. 
 v.