State v. Durbin
2012 Ohio 301
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Medina Municipal Court convicted no one; on August 22, 2010 deputy responded to fireworks complaint at Durbin's home.
- Durbin claimed the found items were his fireworks; items photographed and later destroyed by the sheriff's office.
- The State charged Durbin with possession of fireworks under R.C. 3743.65(A).
- The trial court granted Crim.R. 29 directed verdict, finding the State failed to prove all elements of the offense.
- The State appealed under R.C. 2945.67(A) and App.R. 5, challenging whether certain exceptions are elements or affirmative defenses.
- The Court of Appeals held that some exceptions are elements and some are affirmative defenses, and affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are licensure exceptions elements or affirmative defenses? | State contends exceptions are not peculiarly within defendant's knowledge. | Durbin argues exceptions are affirmative defenses placing burden on the State? | Exceptions [1],[2],[3],[6] are elements; State bears burden. |
| Are 3743.80 exceptions for use/purpose affirmative defenses or elements? | State argues most 3743.80 exceptions are not peculiarly within defendant's knowledge. | Durbin argues most 3743.80 exceptions are defenses. | 3743.80(A),(B),(C),(D),(F),(H) are affirmative defenses; (E),(G) are elements. |
| Did trial court misallocate burden of proof on affirmative defenses? | State says burden shifts after proving possession. | Durbin says burden stays on State for all elements; defenses on defendant. | Burden allocation as clarified: State proves elements; defendant bears burden for affirmative defenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Keeton, 18 Ohio St.3d 379 (1985) (directed verdict is a final verdict; double jeopardy etc.)
- State v. Bistricky, 51 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (review substantive law rulings after acquittal; discretionary review under 2945.67(A))
- U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (double jeopardy considerations on retrial; review for appealability)
- State v. Nucklos, 171 Ohio App.3d 38 (2007-Ohio-1025) (knowledge not peculiarly within the accused; licensure exceptions treated)
- State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St.3d 187 (1983) (entrapment; knowledge of predisposition as part of affirmative defense)