[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 72 Ohio St.3d 54.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. LARABEE, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Larabee, 1995-Ohio-56.] 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), 71 Ohio St.3d 449, 644 N.E.2d 318. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________