State v. Wharf

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Wharf

700 N.E.2d 879, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1463, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 3039

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 21, 1998

Docket98-1925

StatusPublished

This text of 700 N.E.2d 879 (State v. Wharf) 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. Wharf, 700 N.E.2d 879, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1463, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 3039 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Warren App. No. CA97-08-087. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated at pages 1-2 of the court of appeals’ Entry Granting Motion to Certify filed August 19,1998:

“The above cause is before the court pursuant to a motion to certify conflict filed by counsel for appellant, Stephen M. Wharf, on June 17, 1998. The motion contends that this court’s decision in the above case conflicts with the decisions of four appellate districts, ie., State v. Anthony (Sept. 30, 1994), Lake App. No. 93-L-096, unreported [1994 WL 587882]; State v. Gulley (June 17, 1992), Summit App. No. 15137, unreported [1992 WL 140006]; State v. Steel (Oct. 21, 1997), Defiance App. No. 4-96-29, unreported [1997 WL 661108]; and State v. Westbrook (Sept. 23, 1992), Licking App. No. 92-CA-2, unreported [1992 WL 307874],

“Upon due consideration of the foregoing, the court finds that its decision is in conflict with the above four cases and that the motion to certify should be GRANTED. The issue for certification is whether R.C. 2901.21(B) requires the particular robbery element, codified in R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), ‘[h]ave a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control,’ to be committed with the mens rea of recklessness.”

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

Warren App. No. CA97-08-087. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated at pages 1-2 of the court of appeals’ Entry Granting Motion to Certify filed August 19,1998:

“The above cause is before the court pursuant to a motion to certify conflict filed by counsel for appellant, Stephen M. Wharf, on June 17, 1998. The motion contends that this court’s decision in the above case conflicts with the decisions of four appellate districts, ie., State v. Anthony (Sept. 30, 1994), Lake App. No. 93-L-096, unreported [1994 WL 587882]; State v. Gulley (June 17, 1992), Summit App. No. 15137, unreported [1992 WL 140006]; State v. Steel (Oct. 21, 1997), Defiance App. No. 4-96-29, unreported [1997 WL 661108]; and State v. Westbrook (Sept. 23, 1992), Licking App. No. 92-CA-2, unreported [1992 WL 307874],

“Upon due consideration of the foregoing, the court finds that its decision is in conflict with the above four cases and that the motion to certify should be GRANTED. The issue for certification is whether R.C. 2901.21(B) requires the particular robbery element, codified in R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), ‘[h]ave a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control,’ to be committed with the mens rea of recklessness.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 N.E.2d 879, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1463, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 3039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wharf-ohio-1998.