Legal Opinion

State v. Kelley

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 3, 2008No. 22438PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Fain, Judge.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Bertha Kelley, appeals from her conviction and sentence for failing to comply with the order of a city of Dayton conservation specialist, in violation of Section 93.05 of the Revised Code of General Ordinances (“RCGO”) of the city of Dayton. Kelley contends that the trial court — the finder of fact in this bench trial — erred in applying strict liability, because the ordinance defining the offense, RCGO Section 93.05, does not plainly indicate a purpose to impose strict criminal liability. We agree. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. CollinsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State v. SchlosserOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. City of Dayton v. SheibenbergerOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. City of Dayton v. Becker, 22107 (5-2-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. State v. Moler, 22106 (5-2-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. Robinson, 22646 (2-27-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. State v. WaldronOhio Court of Appeals · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API