Beazell v. Ohio - 269 U.S. 167 (1925)


U.S. Supreme Court

Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925)

Beazell v. Ohio

Nos. 247, 248

Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted October 5, 1925

Decided November 16, 1925

269 U.S. 167

Syllabus

1. The constitutional provision (Art. I. Sec. 10) forbidding the states to pass ex post facto laws was intended to secure substantial personal rights against arbitrary and oppressive legislation, and not to limit the legislative control of remedies and modes of procedure which do not affect matters of substance. P. 269 U. S. 171.

2. An Ohio law providing that, when two or more persons were jointly indicted for a felony, on application to the court, each should be tried separately, was amended so as to require a joint trial unless the court should order otherwise for good cause shown. Held that the amendment was not an ex post facto law within the constitutional restriction, as applied to persons who were indicted after,

Page 269 U. S. 168

for an offense alleged to have been committed before, the date of the amendment. P. 269 U. S. 170.

111 Ohio St. 838, id., 839, affirmed.

Error to judgments of the Supreme Court of Ohio affirming convictions of embezzlement. The cases are disposed of here on motions to dismiss or affirm.



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.