Case Name: Edward Long v. State of Ohio
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-12-04
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 861
Docket Number: No. 17973
Parties: Edward Long v. State of Ohio.
Judges: Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
No. 17973
Edward Long v. State of Ohio.
Error to the Court of Appeals of Belmont county.
227A — JURIES.
Irregularities in summoning to be disregarded, when — Failure of sheriff to sign return of a venire, 13642 GC-, within the time limit; error avoided how.
55B. BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS.
Errors in spelling names therein, Court of Appeals may correct, 11572-2a GC,
260. MURDER.
Incumbent upon defendant asserting voluntary intoxication as a defense to establish degree of by a preponderance of the evidence; but this does not relieve state of burden to prove each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Opinion:
MARSHALL, C. J.
1.Irregularities on the part of ministerial officers P' l summoning and impaneling jurors will be discarded by reviewing courts, and also by trial courts after verdict rendered, unless it is shown that one or more of the accepted jurors did not possess the requisite qualifications to act as juror.
2.The failure of a sheriff to sign the return showing the manner of service of a venire for a jury, under Section 13642, General Code, within the time limited by that section, does not avoid the proceedings under such venire, and such sheriff may sign such return after the time so limited. If the time of trial is thereafter postponed for a sufficient length of time to permit the lapse of fifteen days from the time of signing such return until the day of trial, no prejudicial error will result to the accused.
3.By the provisions of Section 11572-a, the Court of Appeals is authorized to correct the spelling of names in a bill of exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas.
4.Where in the trial of a first degree murder Base the defendant asserts voluntary intoxication * s a defense to the prosecution it will be incumbent upon him to establish that degree of intoxication which rendered him; incapable of forming the intent to kill, or of acting with premeditation and deliberation, and the burden is upon such defendant to establish such defense by a preponderance of such evidence. This does not, however, relieve the state of the general burden to prove 'each and every element going to make up the offense charged by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judgment affirmed.
Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.