Moore v. State (2 Ohio St. 500, 1853)

Caldwell, J.

The plaintiff in error, William 0. Moore, was in-dieted for the murder of Sarah Jane Stewart, and found guilty of murder in the second degree. On the trial, the following bill of exceptions was taken, and made a part of the record:

The prosecuting attorney having given evidence to prove that ■said. Sarah Jane Stewart was missing on the evening of the 17th -day of September last, and her body found in the Mahoning river ■on the afternoon of the 25th day of September aforesaid; and having given evidence tending to show that the said Sarah Jane Stewart come to her death in the manner described in the first and third -counts of the indictment, called William Huff as a witness, and offered to prove by him, that on the 22d or 23d day of September last, and during the September term, 1852, of this court, the witness, the defendant, and other persons were in a grocery in the town of ■Canfield, in said county; that during the time they were in said .grocery, a row occurred between other parties; that shortly there.after, on the same day, the said defendant, in the presence of witness, remarked that he could have rid the grocery very easily; that he could kill a man by throwing him on the ground, jamming his knees into him, and knocking the breath out of him, then grasping him by the throat, and his breath would never return. To the introduction of which evidence, counsel for the defendant objected; 'but the court overruled the objection, and admitted the testimony to go to the jury.

During the further trial of the cause, the prosecution having given evidence tending to show that the body of the deceased, after her disappearance, had been concealed until the night of the 18th of September, and then put into the river, after the prosecuting attorney had rested on behalf of the state, the defendant called William Meeker, who was then sheriff of the county, to prove that he was at the house *of the defendant on the said 17th of September, to serve a subpena in chancery on said defendant, at a particular hour on that day; and having examined said Meeker concerning matters alleged in defense, the prosecuting attorney, in the cross-examination of said witness, inquired of him concerning a ■conversation between the witness and the defendant, on the 18th day ■of September aforesaid, the day subsequent to that on which the facts called out by the defense occurred; and offered to prove by the