Ohio domestic violence law

An article in yesterday’s Enquirer notes that the constitutionality of Ohio’s domestic violence law is being weighed by the Ohio Supreme Court, with oral arguments having been heard last December 12th.. (Docket)

At issue is whether Ohio’s domestic violence statutes apply to unmarried persons living together, with a number of the state’s appeals courts having different ways. The 12th. District in this particular case had held that the statutes were constitutional, along with a majority of the other districts; but the Second and Third Districts held last year that the statute was “unconstitutional as applied to cohabitants because it recognizes a ‘legal status’ approximating marriage” in violation of the 2004 “marriage amendment” to Ohio’s constitution. (See State v. Ward and State v. McKinley). Alternatively, the Sixth and Eleventh Districts have held that “even though the statute creates a legal status, that status cannot be said to approximate marriage.” (State v. Rodriguez and State v. Jenson)

Ohio "Public Records Access Counsel"

Commensurate with changes and “upgrades” to Ohio public records law over the past year or so, a bill’s now been introduced in the House that would create “the office of Public Access Counselor in the Court of Claims to receive complaints & issue advisory opinions concerning public records and open meeting laws..”

The public access counselor will be a licensed, practicing attorney, appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court for a term of four years, but not engaged in “any profession, business, or practice that may conflict with his/her duties.”

In addition to managing public records complaints and establishing procedures to do so, the office of the public relations counselor would also assist the attorney general in developing & providing public record training programs & seminars, and make recommendations to both the General Assembly and Supreme Court concerning ways to “improve public access to public records and ensure public attendance at public meetings.”

One perhaps more significant provision of this bill is that a person doesn’t have to file a complaint with the newly-formed office before filing a court action pursuant to public records law. Also, the procedures that would be set forth in these news sections would not “constitute an alternative remedy in the ordinary course of the law for purposes of seeking any judicial remedy authorized by the Revised Code or any rule of court.”



HB 9 (2006)
HB 9 post on Dec. 29, 2006 (Here)

HB 141 (2006)
HB 141 post on June 5, 2007

Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Supplementing previous post.

The United States Sentencing Commission’s publication its 2007 “Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy” report to Congress late last month, gave a great deal of special attention to comparing and contrasting federal sentencing policies with respect to cocaine offenses to those of the individual states.

The basic framework of statutory minimum penalties applicable to federal drug trafficking laws was set forth in 1986 with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. In establishing mandatory minimum penalties respective of cocaine offenses, Congress differentiated between the two principle forms of the drug found on the street – “powder” and “crack”—providing significantly higher punishments for the latter. The overwhelming majority of the states, however – including Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania—do not distinguish between “powder” and “crack” in their basic statutes, according to the Commission’s report. Ohio, at this point does, but currently has a bill in its senate which would remove those distinctions. (See Bill Analysis for detailed information)

Thirteen states, on the other hand—Indiana and Ohio included—have guideline systems with “determinate,” mandatory sentencing. “Determinate sentences” are those in which the sentence imposed approximates time served, as opposed to early releases before serving the full sentence.

Only a small minority of all drug offenses are tried on the federal level, the Commission admitted, but with the states “generally not having adopted the federal penalty structure for cocaine offenders, the decision whether to prosecute at the state or federal level can have an especially significant effect on the ultimate sentence imposed on an individual offender.”



ORC on possession ( § 2925.11)
ORC on trafficking ( § 2925.03)

Ind. Code on possession ( § 35-48-4-6)
Ind. Code on trafficking ( § 35-48-4-1)