State v. Cole
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Cole, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6411.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-6411 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. COLE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Cole, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6411.] Certified question answered by State v. Cargile Cause remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of State v. Cargile. (Nos. 2009-0030 and 2009-0315 Submitted November 18, 2009 Decided December 10, 2009.) APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 91305, 2008-Ohio-6647. __________________ {¶ 1} The certified question in case No. 2009-0315 is answered by our opinion in State v. Cargile, 123 Ohio St.3d 343, 2009-Ohio-4939, 916 N.E.2d 775. {¶ 2} There is no indication in the court of appeals opinion below whether the defendant was warned that bringing illegal contraband into the detention facility would result in additional charges or whether the defendant affirmatively denied possessing any such material. However, whether a warning SUPREME COURT OF OHIO by an officer and a denial of possession of contraband by the defendant are required prior to a conviction for illegal conveyance was not a consideration before this court in State v. Cargile. Accordingly, in order to give the parties the opportunity to consider these factors, case No. 2009-0030 is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of State v. Cargile and consideration of whether the absence of both an officer s warning and the defendant s denial of possession of contraband, if applicable, would alter the result below. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. O DONNELL, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. __________________ William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thorin Freeman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Andrew J. King, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. ______________________ 2
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.
