State v. Powers

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Powers

596 N.E.2d 1121, 73 Ohio App. 3d 277, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1790

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 1991

DocketNo. C-900445.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 596 N.E.2d 1121 (State v. Powers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Powers, 596 N.E.2d 1121, 73 Ohio App. 3d 277, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1790 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

*278 Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon appeal from the Hamilton County Municipal Court.

We sustain the appellant’s sole assignment of error because the appellant presented uncontroverted proof that he shot the dog “while driving it away from his premises” and that he thereafter timely deposited sufficient funds to cover any damages incurred and thereby sustained his burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense to a charged violation of R.C. 959.02. See R.C. 959.04. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of conviction entered below and order that the appellant be discharged.

Judgment reversed and defendant discharged.

Doan and Utz, JJ., concur. Gorman, P.J., dissents.

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

*278 Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon appeal from the Hamilton County Municipal Court.

We sustain the appellant’s sole assignment of error because the appellant presented uncontroverted proof that he shot the dog “while driving it away from his premises” and that he thereafter timely deposited sufficient funds to cover any damages incurred and thereby sustained his burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense to a charged violation of R.C. 959.02. See R.C. 959.04. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of conviction entered below and order that the appellant be discharged.

Judgment reversed and defendant discharged.

Doan and Utz, JJ., concur. Gorman, P.J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

596 N.E.2d 1121, 73 Ohio App. 3d 277, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-powers-ohioctapp-1991.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack