Legal Opinion
Beckman v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 28, 1930No. 22173PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
Much of the brief of plaintiff in error is devoted to the claim that the defendant was convicted in the trial below upon the uncorroborated testimony of his accomplice, Seary. It is not, however, the law in this state that a jury cannot convict upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. This was the holding in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus in Allen v. State, 10 Ohio St., 287, a decision by the unanimous court, which reads as follows:
“While it is the duty of the court, in their discretion, to advise the jury not to convict of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice alone…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hopt v. People of Territory of UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Beazell v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Kring v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Thompson v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Smith v. New York Central Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1930
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. WoleryOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- State v. HectorOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Kilbreath v. RudyOhio Supreme Court · 1968
- People v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- State v. BottaOhio Supreme Court · 1971
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.