In re Sexual Offender Reclassification Cases

935 N.E.2d 415, 126 Ohio St. 3d 505

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Sexual Offender Reclassification Cases. Read the opinion of the Court — 126 Ohio St. 3d 322 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 6, 2010·Published

Opinion

{¶ 1} Discretionary appeals are accepted in the following cases on the Propositions of Law noted. The judgments of the courts of appeals are reversed as to those portions of the judgments that rejected constitutional challenges to the Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds on the authority of State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for further proceedings, if any, necessitated by State v. Bodyke.

{¶ 2} 2010-0588. Anderson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090006. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 3} 2010-0590. Edwards v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090189. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 4} 2010-0593. Wilson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090190. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 5} 2010-1080. Crawford v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090487. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 6} 2010-1081. Mackey v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090378. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 7} 2010-1082. Martin v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090523. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 8} 2010-1084. Johnson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090475. Proposition of Law No. III.

[506]*506{¶ 9} 2010-1125. Wiehe v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090500. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 10} 2010-1128. Taulbee v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090563. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 11} 2010-1164. Stigall v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081307. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 12} 2010-1165. State v. Caudill, Hamilton App. No. C-090530. Proposition of Law No. III.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI