Case Name: Grooms v. The State of Ohio
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1911-03-07
Citations: 83 Ohio St. 408
Docket Number: No. 12897
Parties: Grooms v. The State of Ohio.
Judges: Spear, C. J., Davis, Si-iauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 83
Pages: 408–411

Head Matter:
Grooms v. The State of Ohio.
Bribery and corruption• — Section 13314, General Code — Exclusion from the right of suffrage — Of one who sells his vote — Section 4 of Article V of the Constitution.
Section 13314, General Code, providing for the exclusion from the right of suffrage of ‘ one who sells his vote is within the express authority conferred upon the general assembly by Section 4 of Article Y of the constitution to exclude “any person convicted of bribery, perjury or other infamous crime.”
(No. 12897
Decided March 7, 1911.)
Error to the Common Pleas Court of Adams county.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. S. L. Patterson; Mr. John A. Eylar; Mr. C. E. Roebuck and Mr. J. R. B. Kessler, for plaintiff in error, cited and commented upon the - following authorities:
Brightly’s Leading Cases on Elections, 134, 135, 136; Commonwealth v. Shaver, 3 Watts. & Serg. (Pa.), 338; Brown v. Railway Co., 102 Wis., 137, 44 L. R. A., 579; Knight v. Johnson, 1 N. P., N. S., 260; State v. Shock, 68 Mo., 580; 21 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 ed.), 1011; St. Paul v. Traeger, 25 Minn., 253; Turnpike Co. v. Neil, 9 Ohio, 11; Shultz v. Cambridge, 38 Ohio St., 659; Bell v. Smalley, 45 N. J. Eq., 478; Bressler v. Wayne County, 32 Neb., 834; Batter v. Bauer, 2 N. Dak., 108; United States v. Speeden, 1 Cranch C. C., 535; Gridley v. Insurance Co., 14 Blatchf., 107; Webb v. State, 29 Ohio St., 358; Mitchell v. State, 42 Ohio St., 386; McCrary on Elections (4 ed.), Sec. 121; Dillingham v. State, 5 Ohio St., 280; Hallett v. State, 29 Ohio St., 168; Griffin v. State, 34 Ohio St., 301; United States v. Cobb, 43 Fed. Rep., 570; Macklin v. United States, 117 U. S., 348; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S., 417; State v. Nolan, 15 R. I., 529; McKee v. Wilson, 87 N. Car., 300; Gudger v. Penland, 108 N. Car., 593; Mason v. State, ex rel., 58 Ohio St., 50; 4 Blackstone’s Commentaries, 4, 5, 139; 1 Russell on Crimes (1853), 154; 1 Hawk P. C., 67; 3 Inst., 145; Holton v. State, 2 Fla., 476; State v. Williams, 7 Rob. (La.), 252; Illies v. Knight, 3 Tex., 312; Kentucky v. Denison, 24 How., 66; State v. Peterson, 41 Vt., 511; Patten v. People, 18 Mich., 314; Sec. 10, Art. I, Const. of 1851; Sec. 4, Art. IV, Const. of 1802; Sec. 4, Art. V, Const. of 1851; 1 Chase’s Statutes, 367; Swan’s Statutes (1841), 1020; Sections 12370, 12372, 13314, 13424, 13441, 13676, General Code.
Mr. Timothy S. Hogan, attorney general; Mr. Clarence D. Laylin; Mr. F. A. Shively; Mr. Will P. Stephenson and Mr. Oscar W. Newman, for defendant in error, cited and commented upon the following authorities:
Christie v. People, 206 Ill., 337; Barker v. People, 20 Johns., 457; Baum v. State, 157 Ind., 282; State, ex rel., v. Buckman, 18 Fla., 267; Anderson v. State, 72 Ala., 187; Pandects of Justinian, 48-14-1; Rex v. Pitt, 3 Burr., 1335; Mason v. State, ex rel., 58 Ohio St., 50; State v. Gardner, 54 Ohio. St., 34; Clark & Marshall on Crimes, 11, 670; 2 McClain on Crim. Law, Sec. 947; Russell v. Commonwealth, 3 Bush (66 Ky.), 469; 1 McClain on Crim. Law, Sec. 20; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S., 393; Black’s Const. Law, 644, 645; Barker v. People, 3 Cowen (N. Y.), 686; Cooley’s. Const. Lim., 183; 6 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 ed.), 921, 922, 923, 924; Sec. 4, Art. IV, Const. of 1802; Sec. 2, Art. VII, Const. of 1802; Sec. 4, Art. V, Const. of 1851; 1 Chase’s Statutes, 367, 625; 2 Chase’s Statutes, 1097; 3 Chase’s Statutes, 1670; Swan’s Statutes (1854), 269, 288, 289, 351; 1 Curwen, 769; 3 Curwen, 1928; 1 Swan & Critchfield, 546, 547, 548; Sections 12372 and 13314, General Code.

Opinion:
By the Court.
An indictment was found against Grooms, charging that on the 8th day of November, 1910, he agreed, in consideration of ten dollars, to vote for the persons whose names appeared on the ticket of the Republican party on the ballot then being voted. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty. The sentence which followed included the exclusion of the accused from the right of suffrage for five years next succeeding the day of sentence. Although that portion of the sentence is within the express terms of Section 13314, General Code, it is said to be erroneous because the statute exceeds the authority whiéh the constitution has conferred upon the general assembly in that behalf. This conclusion is based upon the proposition that bribery is not an infamous crime. The authority questioned is granted by Section 4 of Article V of the consti1 tution in these terms: "The-general assembly shall have power to exclude from the privilege of voting, or of being eligible to office, any person convicted of bribery, perjury or other infamous crime." The words "other" and "infamous" being in the same construction with respect to their qualifying scope, it is obvious that if the latter requires the ground of exclusion to be an infamous crime, the former, for the purpose of this grant of power, affixes that character to bribery. The act is within the express terms of the grant.
Judgment affirmed.
Spear, C. J., Davis, Si-iauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.