State v. Harris
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Harris, 2003-Ohio-5961.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 19397 v. : T.C. NO. 2001 CR 3081 ERIC DARNELL HARRIS : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : : .......... OPINION Rendered on the 7th day of November , 2003. .......... NATALIA S. HARRIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0072431, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID H. LANDON, Atty. Reg. No. 0029185, 322 South Patterson Blvd., Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant .......... WOLFF, J. {¶1} Eric Harris was found guilty after a bench trial of carrying concealed weapons, a fourth degree felony. He was sentenced to community control sanctions. On appeal, Harris advances three assignments of error: 2 1. THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE SUSTAINED THE MOTION TO {¶2} DISMISS BECAUSE OHIO REVISED CODE 2923.12, AS APPLIED, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE IT PRESUMES A PERSON GUILTY TILL PROVEN INNOCENT. {¶3} DISMISS 2. THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE MOTION TO BECAUSE OHIO REVISED CODE 2923.12 RESTRICTION OF CONCEALING WEAPONS INFRINGES ON AN INDIVIDUAL S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. {¶4} 3. THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PROVIDED BY R.C. 2923.12 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE. {¶5} All three assignments implicate the constitutionality of R.C. 2923.12, and they are overruled on the authority of Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537, 2003-Ohio-4779. {¶6} The judgment will be affirmed. .......... FAIN, P.J. and BROGAN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Natalia S. Harris David H. Landon Hon. Michael T. Hall
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
