construing R.C. 2921.31(A) and 2921.13(A)(3)
How later courts described this case
- construing R.C. 2921.31(A) and 2921.13(A)(3)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Westfall, Unpublished Decision (9-13-2006), 2006 Ohio 4729 (2006)
With the exception of this statement of the standard for obstruction, Lazzaro is distinguishable from this case because the defendant in Lazzaro was charged with obstructing official business under R.C. 2921.31(A), which requires that the police actually be hampered in their investigation by the defendant's false statement.
The opinion
Stratton, J.,
concurring. I concur in the majority opinion. There does not seem to be any dispute over the law, but rather how the law applies to these facts. Was Lazzaro merely confused about her conflicting duties, as the dissent *267 alleges, or was she trying to hide patient abuse to protect her nursing home, as the jury found? Did she call the police again because she realized a discrepancy, or because she knew the facts were about to come out? The jury was in the best position to weigh credibility (both hers and Officer Kish’s), to judge motive, and to decide whether the evidence supported the charge beyond a reasonable doubt that Lazzaro intended to impede the investigation. Therefore, since the weighing of the evidence is the real issue here, and the evidence can clearly be read as the jury found, I would affirm the court of appeals and the jury’s conclusions.
Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.