Court Opinion

ID: 3741215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 07:05:02.367675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:20.779573
License: Public Domain

I concur with the majority in regard to the overruling of assignment of error I, but not for the same reasons. It is difficult for me to find that a jury would have found the appellant guilty of abduction without a jury instruction as to abduction. However, appellant's counsel did not object to those instructions. It is conceivable that this was a strategic decision of appellant's counsel. In other words, appellant's counsel may have decided that it was better to present the jury with the option to choose between kidnapping and abduction rather than between kidnapping and nothing. Therefore, I would rely solely on the rationale set forth in State v. Kollar
(1915), 93 Ohio St. 89 as that case is quoted in the majority opinion. Appellant's counsel should not be able to attempt to shield his client from possible conviction on a kidnapping charge by consenting to jury instructions on the abduction charge and then turn around and use those same jury instructions as a sword to strike down the conviction.
                                        ----------------------- Judge Julie A. Edwards
with the jury's resolution of the evidence.
Appellant's third assignment of error is overruled.
The conviction and sentence of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J. and Gwin, P.J. concur.
Edwards, J. concurs separately.
----------------------
----------------------
                                         ---------------------- JUDGES
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant.
----------------------
----------------------
                                         ---------------------- JUDGES