50 Ohio St. 2d 69 | Ohio | 1977
False imprisonment has been succinctly defined in the following manner: “ # * * to confine one intentionally without lawful privilege and against his consent within a limited area for any appreciable time, however short.” 1 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, 226, Section 3.7 (1956).
At the time of the arrest in the instant cause, R. C. 2935.03 provided, in pertinent part, that “[a] sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshall, deputy marshall, or police officer shall arrest and detain a person found violating a law of this state, or an ordinance of a municipal corporation, until a warrant can be obtained.”
At the trial level, therefore, the issue revolved around whether Santiago Feliciano, Sr., committed an assault
Since’ reasonable minds could reach different conclusions concerning this testimony, determination as to what occurred was a question of fact for the jury. Paragraph five of the syllabus in State v. Antill (1964), 176 Ohio St. 61.
In the instant cause, the testimony as provided by the Felicianos could justify the jury’s conclusion that appel-ants Kreiger and Fenn were liable to Santiago Feliciano, Sr., for false imprisonment.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
This section was amended by Am. Sub. House Bill No. 511, effective January 1, 1974.
See State, ex rel. Morris, v. Mills (W. Va. 1974), 203 S. E. 2d 362; White v. Pierson (Colo. App. 1974), 533 P. 2d 514.