468 N.E.2d 104 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1983
This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the Franklin County Municipal Court.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. The defendant-appellant, Richard C. Parks, a law student at Capital University, and, pertinently, not a student at Ohio State University ("OSU"), attempted to procure an OSU student identification card under the name of his brother, an OSU student. An observant clerk, noting that appellant had misspelled his brother's name while signing the card, alerted the campus police who were able to detain appellant.
This case was tried to the court on February 14, 1983, and appellant was found guilty of violating R.C.
Appellant asserts the following single assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in finding the defendant guilty of falsification, since the defendant is not guilty of the offense as a matter of law."
R.C.
"(A) No person shall knowingly make a false statement, * * * when * * *:
"* * *
"(3) The statement is made with purpose to mislead a public official in performing his official function."
Appellant concedes that his conduct amounted to a false statement knowingly made with purpose to mislead. His argument urges that the clerk involved is not a "public official," or, in the alternative, that the function of issuing student identification cards is not an "official function" within the contemplation of the statutory proscription.
Regardless of whether or not a clerk issuing student identification cards at a state university is a "public official" under R.C.
The term "official function" is not defined in the Revised Code. Examples given in the Committee Comment to H.B. No. 511, relative to R.C.
"(1) * * * in any official proceeding.
"(2) * * * with purpose to incriminate another.
"* * *
"(4) * * * with purpose to secure the payment of workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, aid for the aged, aid for the blind, aid for the permanently and totally disabled, aid to dependent children, general relief, retirement benefits, or other benefits administered by a governmental agency or paid out of a public treasury.
"(5) * * * with purpose to secure the issuance by a governmental agency of a license, permit, authorization, certificate, registration, or release.
"(6) * * * sworn or affirmed before a notary public or other person empowered to administer oaths.
"(7) * * * in writing on or in connection with a report or return which is required or authorized by law.
"(8) * * * in writing, and [when] made with purpose to induce another to extend credit to or employ the offender, or to confer any degree, diploma, certificate of attainment, award of excellence, or honor on the offender, or to extend to or bestow upon the offender any other valuable benefit or distinction, when the person to whom such statement is directed relies upon it to his detriment."
To read R.C.
The General Assembly will not be presumed to have intended to enact a law producing unreasonable or absurd consequences and it is the duty of the courts, if the language of the statute fairly permits, to construe the statute so as to avoid such an interpretation. Canton v. Imperial Bowling Lanes, Inc. (1968),
In this regard, while we have great respect for tasks performed by the numerous clerical staffs of the various state agencies and offices, to say that each is a "public official" performing "official functions" for the purposes of R.C.
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that where sections of a statute are in pari materia, they shall be construed together so as to give full force and effect to the legislative intent. See, generally, 50 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d (1961) 189, Statutes, Section 216, and numerous decisions cited therein. In the case at bar, the eight subdivisions of R.C.
A review of the falsification statute reveals that the legislature did not intend for all falsehoods made to minor functionaries to result in criminal liability. Indeed, *87
each section appears to be aimed at prohibiting deceit in somewhat narrow circumstances. Also, R.C.
This action would appear to fall under R.C.
However, since the appellant's conduct, as a matter of law, does not violate R.C.
The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon as heretofore set forth, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order herein appealed from be, and the same hereby is, reversed and this cause is remanded with instructions that the judgment and sentence thereon be vacated and appellant discharged.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
WHITESIDE, P.J., and REILLY, J., concur.
KOEHLER, J., of the Twelfth Appellate District, sitting by assignment in the Tenth Appellate District.