# State v. Parsley

> Ohio Court of Appeals · March 25, 1994 · 93 Ohio App. 3d 788

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3694209

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. PARSLEY, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 25, 1994
- **Citations:** 93 Ohio App. 3d 788; 639 N.E.2d 1234; 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 1185
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Resnick
- **Judges:** Sherck, Handwork, Resnick
- **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/3694209

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3694209. Public record. Not legal advice.