Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 2004No. 2003-1194Published

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

  1. State v. EppingerOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Bernardini v. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Dougherty v. TorrenceOhio Supreme Court · 1982

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

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

Powered by the Exa API