State v. Thornsbury
2013 Ohio 1914
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Thornsbury was charged in part with escape after failing to report to the county jail as ordered following sentencing.
- She had been released on bond after an initial arrest and was not in detention when the alleged escape occurred.
- The indictment charged escape under R.C. 2921.34(A)(1).
- The trial court denied Thornsbury’s motion to dismiss the indictment and she pled no contest.
- Appellate court held Thornsbury was not under detention under R.C. 2921.01(E) at the time of the alleged escape and remanded for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the indictment legally sufficient for escape? | Thornsbury | Thornsbury | Indictment legally insufficient; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Palmer, 131 Ohio St.3d 278 (2012-Ohio-580) (sufficiency review; pretrial Crim.R. 12(C)(2))
- State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 (2008-Ohio-4493) (Crim.R. 12 interpretation; standard for indictments)
- State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (2007-Ohio-606) (statutory interpretation; purpose of detention definition)
- State v. Chappell, 127 Ohio St.3d 376 (2010-Ohio-5991) (statutory construction; ambiguity analysis)