Powered by TypePad

« Some background on drug dealers being criminally responsible for causing overdose deaths (and its possible theoretical justification) | Main | Another interesting real (local) case to consider in light of punishment theories »

August 29, 2016

Two "extra credit" answers noting provisions of Ohio law similar to the law struck down in Proctor

I am pleased to be able to report that two students have already sent me answer to my in-class question about Ohio criminal statutes structured very similarly to the statute deemed unconstitutional in Proctor:

  1. Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.241 Hidden compartments in vehicles, Sub-section (B): “No person shall knowingly design, build, construct, or fabricate a vehicle with a hidden compartment, or modify or alter any portion of a vehicle in order to create or add a hidden compartment, with the intent to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance.”  (Added student note: This all works on the theory that modifying your car to have a “hidden compartment” and possessing a “hidden compartment” are the same thing. But with my neophyte knowledge of the law and common reasoning I would say they probably are.)

  2. Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.24 Possessing criminal tools, Sub-section (A): “No person shall possess or have under the person's control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally.“

I was thinking/referencing the Ohio possessing criminal tools statute in class, but I am pleased a student also flagged the Ohio hidden compartment crime (which, if you look at the code sections, is really numbered as a kind of subsection/extrapolation on possessing criminal tools).

A few years ago, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a lengthy split opinion in Ohio v. Chappell, 127 Ohio St.3d 376, 2010-Ohio-5991 (December 15, 2010), on the meaning/reach of the term "criminally" in the Ohio possessing criminal tools statute.  (But, for lots of reasons, I think your time this week would likely be better spent re-reading Jones and Martin (or watching Dave Chappelle bits on YouTube) than reading Ohio v. Chappell.)

UPDATE: Another student just sent me another possible addition to the list of Proctor-like laws in Ohio:

Ohio Revised Code Section 2925.041 Sub-section (A):  "No person shall knowingly assemble or possess one or more chemicals that may be used to manufacture a controlled substance in schedule I or II with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance in schedule I or II in violation of section 2925.04 of the Revised Code."  (Added student note:  Thus, this statute is making it illegal to possess a chemical that otherwise would be legal to possess when the possession is coupled with the intent to use the chemical in the making of a controlled substance. This appears to be a nearly identical situation as was presented in Proctor. Then, right before prohibition when alcohol was viewed as extremely problematic, this coupling line of reason was used to aid the prevention of speakeasies. Today, ORC 2925.041 is using the coupling line of reason is being used to aid in the prevention of the manufacturing of what we consider problematic, drugs. Let me know if this was the answer you were looking for.)

August 29, 2016 in Class reflections, Course materials and schedule, Notable real cases, Reflections on class readings | Permalink

Comments

I wasn't sure where to post this but I remember discussing Brock Turner in class.

California just passed a measure that requires a prison sentence for anyone convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious person:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/30/491989477/california-lawmakers-approve-mandatory-sentencing-for-rape

Posted by: Claudia Cash | Sep 1, 2016 2:26:26 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.