DocketNumber: Nos. C-910021, C-910022, C-910023.
Citation Numbers: 602 N.E.2d 734, 76 Ohio App. 3d 576, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 5624
Judges: Gorman, Doan, Hildebrandt
Filed Date: 11/27/1991
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Plaintiff-appellant, the state of Ohio, has taken the instant appeal from the orders of the court below which, for want of jurisdiction, granted the motion to dismiss three criminal charges lodged against defendant-appellee Kent Gerling. The state claims that the dismissal was erroneous because the Hamilton County Municipal Court is authorized to assume jurisdiction over offenses which occur on the Ohio River. The orders of the trial court are affirmed.
On September 1, 1990, the defendant, while operating his watercraft near the center of the Ohio River between Covington, Kentucky, and Cincinnati, Ohio, was stopped by officers of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Watercraft, whose investigation led to the filing of three charges: two for operating under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse and one for operating without proper navigational lights. The defendant moved to dismiss the charges, alleging that the Hamilton County Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction in a criminal prosecution involving offenses which occurred outside its territorial boundaries. After a hearing was conducted on the matter, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the charges against the defendant.
The state's single assignment of error is:
"The trial court erred as a matter of law in granting defendant-appellee's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction."
In 1980, the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Kentucky
(1980),
R.C.
Clearly, these statutes do not reflect an intention by the General Assembly to extend the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County Municipal Court to include that portion of the Ohio River which flows outside the county's territorial boundaries. Accordingly, we hold that the court below properly concluded that it lacked the necessary jurisdiction over the instant criminal prosecution.
The judgment of the trial court, therefore, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
GORMAN, P.J., DOAN and HILDEBRANDT, JJ., concur.