State v. Witsel

The sole question presented by the record in this case is whether the conduct of counsel for the state in introducing the evidence above referred to, in view of its subsequent exclusion by the trial court, constituted such prejudicial error as to warrant a reversal of the conviction of the defendant.

The Court of Appeals, in its reversal, relied upon its interpretation of the pronouncement of this court in the case of Wagner v. State, 115 Ohio St. 136, 152 N.E. 28, wherein a judgment of conviction was reversed because counsel for the state asked the defendant on cross-examination whether he…