Case Name: State of Ohio v. John Brozich
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 812
Docket Number: 17883
Parties: State of Ohio v. John Brozich.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 812–812

Head Matter:
17883
State of Ohio v. John Brozich.
Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga copnty.
129. CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE.
Variance — Definition of — Common Law rule radically changed, by statute, in Ohio — No acquittal unless court finds it material to merits of case or prejudicial to defendant — Larceny and burglary charged in same count; property taken misnamed in indictment, not fatal when cured by evidence given.

Opinion:
WANAMAKER, J.
1. Variance in criminal trials is generally a conflict of disagreement between the pleading, to-wit, the indictment, information or affidavit, and the proof, in a matter essential to the charge.
2. Under the common law any such variance was fatal to conviction; but in most of the states, particularly in Ohio, this common law rule has been radically changed by statute.
3. Where the variance is complained of as fatal because of a difference "in the name or description of a matter or thing" set forth in the indictment, Section 13582 requires that before such variance can be ground for an acquittal of the defendant the court must find "that such variance is material to the merits of the case or may be prejudicial to the defendant."
4. An indictment charging larceny of nine "rungs" of the value of $360, in connection with and in the same count with a charge of burglary, is neither fatal to the charge of burglary nor larceny, where the evidence shows unquestionably that the personal property stolen was not nine "rungs" but nine "rugs" of the value of $360.
Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed, and judgment of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed.
Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.