State v. Arnold (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentO’Donnell, J.
{¶ 77} Respectfully, I dissent.
{¶ 78} The trial court disregarded its duty to appraise the propriety of Lester Arnold’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, errantly compelled Lester to read aloud a statement he made concerning.his son, Jeffrey Arnold, the defendant, and then admitted the statement into evidence, thereby affecting Jeffrey’s rights.
{¶ 79} The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is confined “to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Temple v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1881
- State v. TaltyOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Ex parte IrvineU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1896
- State v. ArnoldOhio Court of Appeals · 2014