Calloway v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1965

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1965-04-28

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Lundgren, State v. Waugh, 07ap-619 (5-6-2008)

Relies on Walker v. Maxwell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-04-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2026

18 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The sole question raised by petitioner in this action is whether the denial of his motion for an order to have the jury view the area where the crime occurred invalidated his conviction.

¶2It is petitioner’s contention that by such refusal the trial judge deprived him of his constitutional right to call witnesses.

¶3The determination as to whether the jury should view the premises where the crime occurred lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Section 2945.16, Revised Code, and 23 Corpus Juris Secundum 989, Criminal Law, Section 986. Any claimed abuse of such discretion must be raised by the statutory post-conviction remedy of appeal, and such error is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Spence v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St. 419, and Walker v. Maxwell, Warden, 1 Ohio St. 2d 136.

¶4Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taet, C. J., ZimmermaN, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schheider and Browh, JJ., concur.