DocketNumber: No. 3170
Citation Numbers: 459 N.E.2d 609, 9 Ohio App. 3d 216
Judges: DAHLING, J.
Filed Date: 5/27/1983
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
I concur in the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in this case, but for different reasons.
The purpose of R.C.
Another salient reason to reinforce this logic is that the state might not have developed the evidence to a sufficient stage to file a given charge, even if it stems from the same factual basis, when it involves a completely different offense. Experience suggests that this occurrence is made more probable in a situation involving an offense of dissimilar import.
In this case, the result would be the same whether the approach in People v. Parker (1978),
"Kidnapping, as defined by R.C.
No issue has been raised here that the alleged abduction and sexual crimes were committed separately.
Further, under the principles for the determination of a lesser and included offense, abduction is a lesser included offense of kidnapping, when the determining criteria are applied: first, severity of penalty, Barber v. State (1884),
Thus, the holding of State v. Donald, supra, would also apply to the charge of abduction here as a lesser offense, which in essence then is an offense of similar import or animus for these purposes.
This approach is consistent with the conclusion reached by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Ladd (1978),
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. *Page 218