State v. Gaston
197 Ohio App. 3d 501
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- State charges Gaston with failure to notify a sheriff of a change of address under R.C. 2950.05(F) related to a prior unlawful sexual conduct conviction.
- Indictment alleges failure occurred between March 19, 2010 and July 29, 2010 in Clark County, Ohio.
- Bill of particulars states defendant failed to report his change of address related to his 2006 unlawful sexual conduct conviction.
- On Feb. 11, 2011, Gaston moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction and failure to plead a mental state.
- Trial court dismissed the indictment, holding it failed to specify which class of address under R.C. 2950.05(A).
- Appellant State appeals the dismissal, arguing the indictment sufficiently charged the offense and conferred jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the indictment adequately charge the offense under R.C. 2950.05(F)? | Gaston | Gaston | indictment sufficient; jurisdiction exists |
| Is lack of specificity about which address category fatal to jurisdiction? | State | Gaston | not fatal; indictment tracks statutory language |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403 (2006-Ohio-4707) (distinguishes notice/non-notice due-process vs. jurisdiction issues)
- State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 246 (2006-Ohio-5202) (defines jurisdiction; subject matter and parties; completeness of court power)
- Baker v. Toledo State Hosp., 88 Ohio App. 345 (1951) (establishes baseline for court jurisdiction over crimes)