State v. Smith
136 Ohio St. 3d 1
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Smith was charged with violating a civil stalking or sexually-oriented-offense protection order (SSOOPO) under R.C. 2919.27(A)(2).
- An ex parte SSOOPO was issued on April 12, 2010, directing Smith to stay away from Pickens, with a full hearing scheduled.
- The clerk of courts issued an order to serve Smith on the same day, but service had not yet been effected at the time of the incident.
- On April 17, 2010, Pickens and Smith had an altercation, and Smith was arrested; the return of service later showed personal service on the same day as the altercation.
- The appellate court held there was insufficient evidence of delivery before the alleged violation, and the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, holding that service/delivery is required before a conviction under R.C. 2919.27(A)(2).
- The decision interpreted delivery as synonymous with service under R.C. 2903.214(F)(1) and remanded for proceedings consistent with the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delivery of the SSOOPO before the alleged violation is required to convict under 2919.27(A)(2). | Pickerins argued service/delivery is required by 2903.214(F)(1) and thus must occur before the violation. | Smith argued service is not an element of 2919.27(A)(2); the order is enforceable upon issuance. | Delivery (service) required; conviction reversed for lack of proof of delivery before the incident. |
| What does 'delivery' mean in 2903.214(F)(1) and is it synonymous with service? | State contends delivery may be satisfied by knowledge of the order. | Delivery is synonymous with service and must occur before the violation. | Delivery means service; the court requires service prior to violation. |
| Does 2919.27(A)(2) incorporate all requirements of 2903.214, including service, for proof of guilt? | State argues plain reading requires reckless violation of a protection order issued under 2903.214, not necessarily served. | The statute incorporates 2903.214 requirements, including service, for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. | Yes; 2919.27(A)(2) incorporates 2903.214 requirements, including service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meeks v. Papadopulos, 62 Ohio St.2d 187 (Ohio 1980) (statutory interpretation using legislative intent and plain language)
- Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621 (1902) (interpretation of statutory terms and legislative intent)
- Stewart v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 34 Ohio St.2d 129 (Ohio 1973) (principles of statutory construction and intent)