Title: DeRolph v. State

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

DEROLPH v. THE STATE OF OHIO. 
[Cite as DeRolph v. State (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1212.] 
(No. 95-2066 — Submitted August 24, 1998 — Decided September 1, 1998.) 
ON INQUIRIES from the Perry County Court of Common Pleas, No. 22043. 
 
In the within cause, Judge Linton D. Lewis, Jr. has propounded to the court 
the following two matters: 
 
“1. 
This Court seeks clarification of the Supreme Court’s order of March 
24, 1997 [78 Ohio St.3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733], as to whether the remand in the 
case at bar includes both the issues of equal protection and the thorough and 
efficient clause of the State Constitution. 
 
“2. 
This Court seeks further clarification as to the proper party to bear the 
burden of production, burden of proof and the related issues of the standard of 
proof and test to be applied.” 
 
The court responds to the foregoing inquiries as follows: 
 
1. 
The remand involves the Thorough and Efficient Clause of the Ohio 
Constitution and not the Equal Protection Clause. 
 
2. 
The state has the burden of production and proof and must show by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the constitutional mandates have been satisfied. 
 
Wherefore, the court having fully responded, the trial court is instructed to 
proceed. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur in Responses 1 and 2. 
 
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur in part with Response 1 and concur in 
Response 2. 
 
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in Response 1 and 
dissent to Response 2. 
__________________ 
 
2
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurring in part.  While I concur with the majority as to 
the Thorough and Efficient Clause consideration, I would also have the remand 
include the equal protection issue. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting in part.  For the reasons discussed in my dissenting 
opinion of August 21, 1998 to DeRolph v. State (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1208, 699 
N.E.2d 516, I respectfully dissent from today’s decision to assign to the state the 
burden of proving that its new legislation is constitutional. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.