Legal Opinion

State v. Silkauskas

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 30, 2009No. 23135PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wolff, Judge.

{¶ 1} This case is before the court on the appeal of Todd Silkauskas from a trial court’s verdict finding him guilty of disorderly conduct under Section 648.04(b)(2) of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Kettering, Ohio. Silkauskas contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he engaged in the affirmative behavior needed under the ordinance to find him guilty. We agree.

I

{¶ 2} In May 2008, Silkauskas drove to the apartment of Wilson Lyons, a friend, to play video games and drink beer. Because he knew that he would be drinking a good number of beers, Silkauskas…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. James E. McCurdy v. Montgomery County, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
  4. State v. ParksOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. State v. GravesOhio Court of Appeals · 2007

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. BradfieldOhio Court of Appeals · 2023
  2. State v. StoneOhio Court of Appeals · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API