Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

State v. Patterson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1982No. Nos. 81-556 and 81-557Published

1Concurring in the judgmentHolmes, J.

I am in agreement that the General Assembly has within R. C. 2925.03(A) created two separate crimes: one, the knowing sale of a controlled substance; the other, the knowing offer to sell a controlled substance. In each of these criminal acts, as charged, there must be a sufficiency of proof offered by the state of all the elements of the crime, including that of intent to commit the act. Before a conviction for an offer to sell a controlled substance can be obtained, pursuant to R. C. 2925.03 (A), the state must present evidence to prove that at the time of the offer the defendant intended to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Shanks v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1971
  2. People v. LawsonNew York Supreme Court · 1975
  3. The People v. LottIllinois Supreme Court · 1962
  4. People v. RosenthalNew York Supreme Court · 1977
  5. State v. MosleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API