Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealtrialpleawill

defendantstatuteappealpleawillobjection

Related Cases

Breaker v. State, 103 Ohio St. 670, 134 N.E. 479, 19 Ohio Law Rep. 516

Facts

William Breaker was convicted in the court of common pleas of Athens County, Ohio, for larceny of an automobile. The owner of the car expressed a lack of desire to prosecute Breaker, stating he did not consider Breaker intended to steal the car. Despite this, the state pursued the case, leading to Breaker's conviction, which he appealed on the grounds of evidentiary rulings and the court's charge.

The owner of the car expressed a lack of desire to prosecute Breaker, stating he did not consider Breaker intended to steal the car.

Issue

Did the trial court err in refusing to admit certain evidence and in its charge to the jury?

As to the refusal of the court to admit certain evidence tendered by the defendant below it is sufficient to say that that evidence related wholly to the attitude of the owner of the car toward the prosecution, in reference to his being personally indisposed to prosecute the defendant, William Breaker; in short, that the evidence offered tended to show that the owner was not inclined to proceed further after learning that Breaker had taken his car.

Rule

A statutory crime is a public wrong, and the state is indifferent to the personal feelings of the property owner regarding prosecution. Prejudicial error must be shown to affect the defendant's substantial rights.

A statutory crime is not a private wrong, but a public wrong; that the public, or state, is entirely indifferent to the personal feelings of the owner of property stolen.

Analysis

The court determined that the evidence regarding the owner's reluctance to prosecute was irrelevant because the crime was a public matter, not a private one. Additionally, while the charge given by the trial court was found to be incorrect, the court emphasized that the determination of whether this error affected the defendant's rights could only be made by examining the entire record, which did not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant was prejudiced.

The rulings of the court in respect to evidence tendered, to which objection was made, were free from error.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, upholding Breaker's conviction for larceny of an automobile.

Therefore the judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the judgment of the court of common pleas, is hereby affirmed.

Who won?

The State of Ohio prevailed in the case because the court found no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or charge that would have prejudiced Breaker's rights.

The state that is prosecuting the violation of its statute, on its own behalf, and not on behalf of the owner of the property.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548, 58 USLW 4599

Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491

Commonwealth v. Childs, 94 Mass.App.Ct. 67, 110 N.E.3d 477

Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621

Davis v. People, 871 P.2d 769