# State v. Sway

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 31, 1984 · 15 Ohio St. 3d 112

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758651

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Sway
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 31, 1984
- **Citations:** 15 Ohio St. 3d 112; 15 Ohio B. 265; 472 N.E.2d 1065; 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1273
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brow
- **Judges:** Brow, Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Only, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 32 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/6758651

## Opinion text

William B. Brow, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully dissent. R.C. 2925.03(A) provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall knowingly * * * (1) [s]ell or offer to sell a controlled substance * * It is incumbent upon this court to remain ever mindful of the rule of construction contained in R.C. 2901.04(A) which provides that “[s]ections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused.”
The majority, in finding that the sale of a prescription is punishable under R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), fails to acknowledge this legislative directive. R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) criminalizes the sale of a controlled substance which is defined as a drug, compound, mixture, preparation or substance included in Schedules I, II, III, IV or V (R.C. 3719.01[D]). A written prescription order form is notedly not included within the definition of a controlled substance. Moreover, and, strictly speaking, as mandated by R.C. 2901.04(A), a prescription form is simply not a controlled substance. The difference between a drug itself and a prescription form is self-evident.
If the General Assembly had intended to criminalize the sale of a written prescription form, it could have so specified. This was likewise recognized in the dissenting opinions in State v. Scott (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 439, 443 [ 23 O.O.3d 390 ], and State v. Patterson (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 445, 452 [ 23 O.O.3d 394 ],
C. Brow, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758651. Public record. Not legal advice.