State v. Thompson
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.
{¶ 1} This cause presents the issue of whether Ohio’s importuning statute, R.C. 2907.07(B), violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. Because we hold that the statutory subsection violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, we reverse defendant-appellant Eric Thompson’s conviction for importuning.
I
{¶2} In July 1999, Thompson was charged with violating R.C. 2907.07(B) after he had solicited a male jogger by offering to perform a sexual act. Prior to *265trial, Thompson moved to…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited26 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. Noling (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. DrainOhio Supreme Court · 2022
- State v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Thorp v. StrigariOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.