Case Name: LORAIN (City) v. JAMESON
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-02-14
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 279
Docket Number: No. 284
Parties: LORAIN (City) v. JAMESON
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
No. 319
LORAIN (City) v. JAMESON
Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist., Lorain County
No. 284.
Decided Feb. 14, 1924
333. CRIMINAL LAW — Proof beyond reasonable doubt required to affirm conviction in criminal prosecutions, preponderance not sufficient.
Attorneys — W. Grills and W. M. Friedman, Lorain, for City; L. D. Hamlin and A. Nieding, Elyria, for Jameson.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
(Funk, Pardee and Washburn).
Epitomized Opinion
Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract
Jameson was convicted in Lorain Municipal Court of the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. The Comjmon Pleas Court reversed the judgment as being against the weight of the evidence. The evidence disclosed that Jame-son was an industrious, hard-working, temperate ufan and lived) in a part of a house, the other part being occupied by one Skinner, but they used the bathrooml in common. In an opening in the bathroom floor, two small bottles containing liquor were found. Both occupants denied any knowledge of the liquor. Confirming the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, the Court of Appeals held:
1 "It is • settled, especially in civil cases, that a- judgment should not be reversed unless it is manifestly contrary to the evidence. There is some difference between the operation of the rule in civil and criminal cases. In the former a bare preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to authorize a verdict, but in a criminal case the evidence must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining whether a judgment in a criminal case is manifestly against the weight of evidence, the reviewing court should take into consideration the degree of proof in criminal cases."