Krusoczky v. State
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
DAY, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Defendant was convicted in the Municipal Court of Dayton of the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and defendant brings error to this court, contending that the affidavit was defective because, to the charge that defendant unlawfully possessed intoxicating liquor, it failed to add “for beverage purposes or as a beverage.” Held:
1. The affidavit was sufficient to charge an offense under 6212-15, 6212-16, 6212-17 GC. (Crabbe Act). To charge unlawful possession is all that is required to state an offense under that act. Elson c. State, 32 OCA- 481- The legislature did not intend to create a middle ground whereby intoxicating liquor notl lawfully possessed in accordance with the terms ofj the statute might be lawfully possessed for non' beverage purposes-
2. 6212-15 and 6212-16 GC. are not in eontraven-| tion of the 18th amendment of the U. S- Constitutio: or of Section 9 of Article 15 of the Constitution o: Ohio.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.