# State v. Clark

> Ohio Court of Appeals · June 1, 1993 · 84 Ohio App. 3d 789

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3687809

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. CLARK, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 1, 1993
- **Citations:** 84 Ohio App. 3d 789; 618 N.E.2d 257; 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2810
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hoffman
- **Judges:** Farmer, Gwin, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3687809

## Opinion text

William B. Hoffman, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
The value of
Nichols v. Ramsel
(1677), 2 Mod. 280, 86 Eng.Rep. 1072, cited by the majority as precedence is diminished in my analysis not because of its vintage but rather because it involved a civil dispute.
Though a number of other states have taken the position espoused by the majority herein, I believe the opposite conclusion to be meritorious. I base my opinion primarily upon the mandate found in R.C. 2901.04(A), which states:
“Sections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused.”
1
*793
Using R.C. 2901.04 in interpreting R.C. 2151.011(B)(1), and as applied to the facts
sub judice,
leads me to conclude the trial court committed error in not transferring the case to the juvenile court.
1
. Whether any of our sister states who have decided this issue have similar statutory construction laws is unknown.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3687809. Public record. Not legal advice.