Legal Opinion
State v. Conger
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided September 16, 1994No. Nos. 712, 713PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Fain, Judge.
Defendants-appellants Joe and Mary Lou Conger appeal from their convictions and sentences for attempted tampering with ballots in violation of R.C. 3599.26.
The Congers contend that on the undisputed facts they are not guilty as a matter of law. They further contend that the statutes under which they were prosecuted, R.C. 3505.24 and 3599.26, are unconstitutionally vague.
We reject the Congers’ interpretation of the applicable statutes. We find the statutes not unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I
The parties have stipulated the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- State v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. S.R.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
- Cline v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. TannerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. CollierOhio Supreme Court · 1991
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ohio Division of Wildlife v. CliftonPickaway County Court of Common Pleas · 1997