noting that former R.C. 2919.21(A)(2) 7 required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the biological parent of the child, while biological parentage was not an element of former R.C. 2919.21(A)(4)
How later courts described this case
- noting that former R.C. 2919.21(A)(2) 7 required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the biological parent of the child, while biological parentage was not an element of former R.C. 2919.21(A)(4)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Melvin L. Resnick, J.,
concurring.
I would note that the denial of appellant’s motion where parentage is an issue in a criminal case is of constitutional magnitude, in that the denial violated appellant’s due process rights under the Ohio and United States Constitutions. Therefore, the authority cited in the first footnote is surplusage.