State v. Bodyke
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.
{¶ 1} In this appeal,1 we decide the constitutionality of the current version of R.C. Chapter 2950, as amended by 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10 (“the Adam Walsh *267Act” or “the AWA”), as those provisions apply to sex offenders whose cases were adjudicated prior to its enactment.
{¶ 2} Although we discharge our duty with great respect for the role of the legislature, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), 372 U.S. 144, 159, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644, for the reasons that follow we are compelled to find that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, the reclassification provisions in the AWA, are unconstitutional…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Mistretta v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- State v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. ChadhaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by344 opinions
- State v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. Henderson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
339 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.