State v. Frost
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLocher., J.
The first issue before this court is whether the enactment of R. C. 2901.05(A), as interpreted in State v. Robinson, supra, evinces manifest legislative intent to impliedly repeal the provision of R. C. 1707.45. R. C. 2901.05(A), a general provision of the Revised Code, was enacted in 1974, and provided, in pertinent part, that: “The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense is upon the accused.” (Emphasis added.)1 On the other hand, R. C. 1707.45, a special provision found within R. C. Chapter 1707, was enacted in 1953 to deal with securities regulation in Ohio.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Leland v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Rodgers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- People v. FigueroaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- State v. VolpeOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. DarrahOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. SufronkoOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- State ex rel. Johnson v. County CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1986
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.