# State v. Patterson

> Ohio Supreme Court · February 24, 1982 · 69 Ohio St. 2d 445

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757543

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Patterson, Appellant The State of Ohio v. Stewart
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 24, 1982
- **Citations:** 69 Ohio St. 2d 445; 432 N.E.2d 802
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Krupansky, Locher, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 55 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/6757543

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the language of R.C.2925.03(A)(1), which prohibits trafficking in drugs, does not permit knowledge of the nature of the substance to be implied as an element of the offense

## Opinion text

Clifford F. Brown, J.,
dissenting. In both cases, I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissent today in State v. Scott (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 439, 443 . A sale or offer to sell a controlled substance was not made in any of these cases within the meaning of R. C. 2925.03(A)(1)(5) or (7), since the goods transferred were not controlled substances, regardless of what defendants thought they were selling. To conclude otherwise violates the principle that criminal statutes defining offenses must be strictly construed against the state and liberally construed in favor of the accused. R. C. 2901.04(A).
W. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757543. Public record. Not legal advice.