State v. Coll
2017 Ohio 7270
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On March 28, 2016, Shamir L. Coll and two others were observed fishing below the Ballville bridge in Fremont, Ohio, an area closed March 1–May 1 under Ohio Adm.Code 1501:31-13-01(F).
- Officer Austin Dickinson verified Coll held an active license, instructed the men to his vehicle to inspect their catch, and measured one of Coll’s walleye at 14.5 inches (under the 15" minimum under Ohio Adm.Code 1501:31-13-09(B)).
- Coll was cited under R.C. 1531.02 and the two Ohio Administrative Code provisions for fishing in a closed zone and possessing an undersized walleye.
- Coll pleaded not guilty, was tried by jury, convicted on the charged misdemeanors, and immediately sentenced to suspended 10-day jail terms, two years non‑reporting probation, 48 hours community service, fines, $100 restitution, and a two‑year ban from fishing in the Lake Erie sport fishing district.
- Coll appealed raising three assignments of error: insufficiency of evidence (arguing mens rea required), vagueness of R.C. 1531.02, and that his sentence was disproportionately harsh.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Coll) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mens rea was required to convict under R.C. 1531.02 (sufficiency of evidence) | Statute and regs create strict‑liability public‑welfare offenses; no mens rea required | Conviction insufficient because State did not prove mens rea | Court: Statute and regs impose strict liability; evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| Whether R.C. 1531.02 is unconstitutionally vague | Prohibitions are defined by delegation to Division rules and specific OAC provisions; citation described the violations | Statute fails to specifically state what is prohibited; void for vagueness | Court: Not vague; specific prohibitions are in administrative rules; statute upheld |
| Whether sentence was an abuse of discretion / disproportionate to co‑defendants | Sentence was within statutory limits, related to offense, and Coll faced an additional charge (undersized fish) | Sentence disproportionately harsher than co‑defendants who pled guilty | Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and permissible conditions (including two‑year fishing ban) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (establishes sufficiency review standard)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (sufficiency test described)
- State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208 (appellate court will not weigh credibility on sufficiency review)
- State v. Cheraso, 43 Ohio App.3d 221 (statutory language "no person shall" indicates strict liability)
- State v. Moody, 104 Ohio St.3d 244 (analyzes mens rea requirement and statutory interpretation)
- State v. Blanton, 184 Ohio App.3d 611 (treats certain regulatory offenses as strict liability)