476 N.E.2d 365 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1984
Defendant-appellant, Stephen D. Pistole, raises the following assignment of error:
"Ohio Revised Code Section
To the extent that the assignment of error contends that R.C.
Appellant's contention that it was not within the power of the General Assembly to impose "strict criminal liability" for a condition that cannot be readily ascertained — that a person's "breath-alcohol" level exceeds the specified concentration — is not well-taken. Although at common law a crime consisted of a combination of a criminal act and criminal intent (see Clark
Marshall, Crimes [1952] 49), criminal intent is not a necessary element of every *387
crime in jurisdictions where crimes are defined by statute. SeeState v. Healy (1951),
In view of the danger inherently posed to members of the public by drinking drivers, it is both fair and reasonable to require a person who elects to operate a motor vehicle after having consumed alcoholic beverages to ascertain at his peril whether he has consumed sufficient alcohol so that his "breath alcohol" concentration has reached the level proscribed by R.C.
The assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MCCORMAC, P.J., and WHITESIDE, J., concur.