State v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (11-7-2003)
State v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (11-7-2003)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} "1. The trial court should have sustained the motion to dismiss because Ohio Revised Code
{¶ 3} "2. The trial court should have granted the motion to dismiss because Ohio Revised code
{¶ 4} "3. The trial court should have granted the motion to dismiss because the affirmative defenses provided by R.C.
{¶ 5} All three assignments implicate the constitutionality of R.C.
{¶ 6} The judgment will be affirmed.
Fain, P.J. and Brogan, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.