State v. Smith
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentO’Donnell, J.
{¶ 34} I respectfully dissent. In my view, the plain language of R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) compels the conclusion that a sexually-violent-predator specification can arise from a conviction for an underlying sexually violent offense included in the same indictment.
{¶ 35} A sexually violent predator is defined as “a person who has been convicted of * * * a sexually violent offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually violent offenses.” R.C. 2971.01(H)(1). Importantly, this statute does not refer to a person who has previously been convicted of a sexually violent offense. The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. EppingerOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
- Bernardini v. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Wheeling Steel Corp. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Dougherty v. TorrenceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.