Ohio Supreme Court, 1928

Costanzo v. State

Costanzo v. State
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 17, 1928 · Robinson, Marshall, Day, Allen, Kinkade, Jones, Matthias
166 N.E. 201; 119 Ohio St. 649; 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 649; 1928 Ohio LEXIS 240 (North Eastern Reporter)

Costanzo v. State

Opinion of the Court

The court being fully advised in the premises finds that the bonds heretofore required of the minors, Joe Costanzo, aged fifteen years, and Mary Costanzo, aged ten years, in the sum of $10,000 each, are excessive; and the Court further finds that any bond required of each of said minors, in excess of $500, would likewise be excessive.

It is therefore ordered that unless said minors Joe Costanzo and Mary Costanzo be permitted to *650 enter into recognizances with sufficient sureties, in a sum not to exceed $500 each, that they he discharged from custody.

Writ allowed.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Dissenting Opinion

Robinson, J.,

dissenting. I dissent from the judgment in this case, for the reason that it was admitted in open court upon the hearing of this cause that the sole purpose of committing the two minors, Joe Costanzo and Mary Costanzo, to jail was to prevent their mother and' others from communicating with them. The statute does not authorize a commitment for any such purpose.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.