State v. Scott
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Scott, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5910.] 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. 2012-OHIO-5910 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SCOTT, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Scott, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5910.] Court of appeals judgment reversed on the authority of In re Bruce S. (No. 2012-0332 Submitted December 13, 2012 Decided December 18, 2012. APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 91890, 2011-Ohio-6255. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals on the first proposition, which raises the issue of sex-offender classification under S.B. 10, is reversed on the authority of In re Bruce S., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2012-Ohio-5696, ___ N.E.2d ___, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of holding a classification hearing consistent with In re Bruce S. {¶ 2} The appeal on the second proposition, which asserts that it is plain error to fail to instruct a jury that sexual contact requires a defendant to have the purpose to touch one of the erogenous zones described in R.C. 2907.01(B), is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. KENNEDY, J., not participating. __________________ Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Vane, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. ______________________ 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.
