Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

80 Ohio App. 3d 404

609 N.E.2d 571

State v. Burrows

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 1, 1992

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1992-06-01

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 2007

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-06-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Nahra, Judge,

¶1 dissenting.

¶2 The statute under which defendant was charged says “[n]o person shall knowingly obtain or exert control over property (1) [wjithout the consent of the owner .” (Emphasis added.) Here the defendant obtained money with the consent of the owner, but when she used it for her own purposes she was exerting control over it without the consent of the owner. Thus, I think she was properly convicted under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), even though she could also have been convicted under (A)(2).

/80/ohioapp3d/404 · .json · Public domain