State v. Cole

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Cole

2009 Ohio 6411, 919 N.E.2d 211, 124 Ohio St. 3d 98

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 10, 2009

Docket2009-0030 and 2009-0315

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 6411 (State v. Cole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Cole, 2009 Ohio 6411, 919 N.E.2d 211, 124 Ohio St. 3d 98 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The certified question in case No. 2009-0315 is answered by our opinion in State v. Cargile, 123 Ohio St.3d 343, 2009-Ohio-4939, 916 N.E.2d 775.

{¶ 2} There is no indication in the court of appeals’ opinion below whether the defendant was warned that bringing contraband into the detention facility would result in additional charges or whether the defendant affirmatively denied possessing any such material. However, whether a warning by an officer and a denial of possession of contraband by the defendant are required prior to a conviction for illegal conveyance was not a consideration before this court in State v. Cargile. Accordingly, in order to give the parties the opportunity to consider *99 these factors, case No. 2009-0030 is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of State v. Cargile and consideration of whether the absence of both an officer’s warning and the defendant’s denial of possession of contraband, if applicable, would alter the result below.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thorin Freeman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Andrew J. King, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. O’Donnell, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

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

{¶ 1} The certified question in case No. 2009-0315 is answered by our opinion in State v. Cargile, 123 Ohio St.3d 343, 2009-Ohio-4939, 916 N.E.2d 775.

{¶ 2} There is no indication in the court of appeals’ opinion below whether the defendant was warned that bringing contraband into the detention facility would result in additional charges or whether the defendant affirmatively denied possessing any such material. However, whether a warning by an officer and a denial of possession of contraband by the defendant are required prior to a conviction for illegal conveyance was not a consideration before this court in State v. Cargile. Accordingly, in order to give the parties the opportunity to consider *99 these factors, case No. 2009-0030 is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of State v. Cargile and consideration of whether the absence of both an officer’s warning and the defendant’s denial of possession of contraband, if applicable, would alter the result below.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thorin Freeman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Andrew J. King, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. O’Donnell, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 6411, 919 N.E.2d 211, 124 Ohio St. 3d 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cole-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack