State v. Vineyard

{¶ 17} Because the trial court erred in dismissing Vineyard's drug-related offenses pursuant to newly-enacted R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b), I dissent.

{¶ 18} R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) became effective on September 13, 2016, approximately five months after Vineyard overdosed and gave his heroin to the police. The trial court held that Vineyard was immune under the statute because he had not yet *784been convicted or penalized at the time the statute became effective.

{¶ 19} A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless it is expressly made retroactive. State v. Consilio , 114 Ohio St.3d 295,…