State v. Gasparac
2017 Ohio 8711
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In three undercover transactions (Nov 2014, Mar 2015, Jan 2016) Ronald Gasparac sold/traded yellow perch to an ODNR agent; total weight purchased was 75 pounds.
- ODNR valued the fish under its valuation rules at $20 per fish (yellow perch classified as “all other wild animals”), producing restitution of $6,120 and felony charges.
- Gasparac was indicted on three counts for illegal sale of wildlife (R.C. 1531.02, 1531.201, 1531.99), each a fifth-degree felony for aggregate value ≥ $1,000.
- He pled no contest but reserved his right to challenge valuation and constitutionality; he moved to dismiss claiming the statutes/rules are arbitrary and capricious and violate separation of powers.
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing on valuation and denied the motion to dismiss; Gasparac was found guilty and sentenced to two years community control plus restitution.
- On appeal, the court considered whether the statutory and administrative valuation scheme is void-for-vagueness/arbitrary as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 1531 statutes and Ohio Adm.Code valuation rule are unconstitutionally vague/arbitrary as applied (i.e., whether ODNR’s $20 per yellow perch valuation is arbitrary, making felony classification invalid) | State: statutes and admin rule valid; ODNR rule lawfully implements R.C. 1531.201 and gives fair notice of valuation method | Gasparac: scheme vests excessive discretion in ODNR; $20 per fish valuation is arbitrary and capricious as applied to him | Court: affirmed — statutes and administrative rule, read in pari materia, give fair notice; valuation method rational and not void-for-vagueness; motion to dismiss properly overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Switzer, 257 N.E.2d 908 (Ohio 1970) (permissible delegation to Division of Wildlife)
- Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 42 N.E.3d 718 (Ohio 2015) (R.C. 1531.201 unambiguous; legislative intent to protect wildlife and allow restitution rules)
- State v. Sway, 472 N.E.2d 1065 (Ohio 1984) (criminal statutes must be construed with common sense and statutory purpose)
- City of Norwood v. Horney, 853 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 2006) (void-for-vagueness analysis requires fair notice to a reasonable person)