{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals on the first proposition, which raises the issue of sex-offender classification under 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10, is reversed on the authority of In re Bruce S., 134 Ohio St.3d 477, 2012-Ohio-5696, 983 N.E.2d 350, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of holding a classification hearing consistent with In re Bruce S.

{¶ 2} The appeal on the second proposition, which asserts that it “is plain error to fail to instruct a jury that sexual contact requires a defendant to have the purpose to touch one of the erogenous zones described in R.C. 2907.01(B),” is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed.