Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Presumptions - Constitutional Validity Of Statute Establishing Proof Of Reputation As Prima Facie Evidence Of Commission Of Crime
Michigan Law Review
The rise and sway of the gangster as a menace to American social and economic security has led, of late, to the employment of unique means of combating lawlessness. Faced by a tremendous increase in the difficulties lying in the path of those seeking the conviction of professional criminals for major crimes, the police and prosecutors often turn towards a means of fighting crime originally devised to make life uncomfortable for petty off enders. The enforcement of the pistol laws and the vagrancy statutes against millionaire gangsters, and repeated arrests on suspicion, have been resorted to as a means of …
Crimes - Burglary - Structures Subject To
Crimes - Burglary - Structures Subject To
Michigan Law Review
The defendant broke and entered a frame poultry house. Held, the indictment for burglary was sufficient under the statute denouncing the breaking and entering of uninhabited dwelling houses or other buildings. Stover v. State, 37 Ohio App. 213, 174 N.E. 613 (1930).
Crimes-Sentence-Suspension Of Execution
Crimes-Sentence-Suspension Of Execution
Michigan Law Review
The defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment for larceny. He was fined and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of thirty days. Both fine and sentence were conditionally suspended. At a subsequent term, the court, finding that the condition had been violated, ordered the execution of the sentence. Held, that although a court has no power to suspend the execution of a sentence, by making the conditional order of suspension the power later to enforce its judgment was lost. Ex parte Steinmetz (Ohio App. 1930) 172 N.E. 623.
Crimes-Former Jeopardy-Prosecution In Two Counties For A Continuous Act
Crimes-Former Jeopardy-Prosecution In Two Counties For A Continuous Act
Michigan Law Review
Defendants transported liquor by a single, uninterrupted act from A county to B county in the same state. Having been convicted and fined in B county for the transportation within its boundaries, they were later indicted in A county for that part of the transportation which took place in that territory. A plea of former jeopardy was sustained by the trial judge, and on appeal this holding was affirmed by a divided court, which held, the act constituted a single offense, punishable in either county, but not in both. State v. Shimman et al. (Ohio, 1930) 172 N.E. 367.