State v. Larabee

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




            THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. LARABEE, APPELLEE.
                      [Cite as State v. Larabee, 

.]
Evidence—R.C. 2933.52(A) prohibition of purposeful interception of wire or oral
        communications through use of an interception device applicable to
        cordless telephone communications.
       (No. 94-2556—Submitted March 7, 1995—Decided April 19, 1995.)
            APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Fairfield County, No.
                                         8-CA-92.
                                  __________________
        Richard L. Ross, Special Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
        Harry R. Reinhart; Lantz, Lantz & Lipp Co., L.P.A. and Charles J. Lantz,
for appellee.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court of
appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Bidinost (1994), 

,

.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
                                  __________________