Title: State v. Cole

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State v. Cole, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6411.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-6411 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. COLE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Cole, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6411.] 
Certified question answered by State v. Cargile — Cause remanded to the court of 
appeals for consideration of State v. Cargile. 
(Nos. 2009-0030 and 2009-0315 — Submitted November 18, 2009 — Decided 
December 10, 2009.) 
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 91305, 2008-Ohio-6647. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} The certified question in case No. 2009-0315 is answered by our 
opinion in State v. Cargile, 123 Ohio St.3d 343, 2009-Ohio-4939, 916 N.E.2d 
775. 
{¶ 2} There is no indication in the court of appeals’ opinion below 
whether the defendant was warned that bringing illegal contraband into the 
detention facility would result in additional charges or whether the defendant 
affirmatively denied possessing any such material.  However, whether a warning 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
by an officer and a denial of possession of contraband by the defendant are 
required prior to a conviction for illegal conveyance was not a consideration 
before this court in State v. Cargile.  Accordingly, in order to give the parties the 
opportunity to consider these factors, case No. 2009-0030 is remanded to the 
court of appeals for consideration of State v. Cargile and consideration of whether 
the absence of both an officer’s warning and the defendant’s denial of possession 
of contraband, if applicable, would alter the result below. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
__________________ 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thorin 
Freeman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 
 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Andrew J. King, Assistant 
Public Defender, for appellee. 
______________________