 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Casshie11/27/2002
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
. This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the trial court records and briefs of counsel.
. The State of Ohio appeals the order of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, which dismissed counts 20-38 and 61-82 of the indictment, aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(B)(4), as levied against the defendant, Thomas Casshie. For the following reasons, we affirm the order dismissing said counts.
. Casshie was originally indicted on 41 counts of deception to obtain dangerous drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.22; 41 counts of aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11; and one count of workers' compensation fraud, in violation of R.C. 2913.48. On April 8, 2002, Casshie's counsel made an oral motion to dismiss the aggravated possession counts, specifically counts 20-38 and 61-82 of the indictment. Thereafter, the trial court granted Casshie's motion to dismiss holding that since the drugs were prescribed by a physician, the court had no alternative but to dismiss the aggravated drug possession counts in accordance with the clear interpretation of the law. R.C. 2925.11(B)(4).
. It is from the order granting defendant's motion to dismiss that the state now appeals, presenting two assignments of error for this court's review.
. "I. IN LIGHT OF STATE V. SWAY, THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE AGGRAVATED POSSESSION COUNTS WAS UNWARRANTED."
. "II. THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY CONSTRUED R.C. 2925.11(B)(4) AGAINST THE APPELLANT."
. Having a common basis in both law and fact, the appellant's two assignments of error will be addressed contemporaneously.
. The trial court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss will not be disturbed unless it is clear that the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217. As stated by the Ohio Supreme Court in Blakemore:
. "The term `abuse of discretion' was defined by this court in State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151: `The term `abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.'
Steiner v. Custer (1940), 137 Ohio St. 448."
. The defendant was indicted charging 41 counts of aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11, which states in pertinent part:
. "(A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance.
. "(B) This section does not apply to any of the following:
. "* * *
. "(4) Any person who obtained the controlled substance pursuant to a prescription issued by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs."
. In dismissing the aforementioned counts against the defendant, the trial court determined that a strict reading of the statue precluded conviction pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(B)(4). In giving R.C. 2925.11 both a plain reading and an ordinary reading, it is clear that under the current statute it is impossible to convict, let alone prosecute, the defendant under this statute.
. The drugs which the defendant obtained were prescribed by physicians who were licensed health professionals authorized to prescribe drugs; therefore, the trial court had no other recourse but to dismiss the aggravated drug possession counts in accordance with a clear interpretation of the law. R.C. 1.47 makes clear that the legislature presumably intends a just and reasonable result when enacting
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|