State v. Wildman
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
There is ample evidence to sustain the conviction even if the testimony of Ruth and Hazel Hunt is excluded from consideration.
Counsel for the defendant expressly stated in open court in the final hearing that the only ground of reversal now contended for is that the Court of Common Pleas erred in holding that Ruth Hunt and Hazel Hunt were competent to testify.
Ruth was the first of these young women to be called to the witness stand. Counsel for defendant promptly objected to her testimony and cited to the court, Section 11493, General Code, which reads as follows:
“All persons are competent…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Holler v. W. S. Dickey Clay Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1943
- Goodson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
- Pittsburgh & W. Ry. Co. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- State v. LeonardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
- State v. ScanlanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
3Cited by32 opinions
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. ButlerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
- State v. FreezeOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. MoorisonWashington Supreme Court · 1953
- State v. MarshallOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.