Court Opinion

ID: 9815080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:23:33.276268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:09.010151
License: Public Domain

Painter, Judge,
dissenting in part.
Only as to the firearm specification, I dissent. While brandishing a gun and threatening to shoot it have been held sufficient to prove operability of the firearm (a dubious proposition at best), simply saying one has a gun is not. If Jeffers had been apprehended at the scene, and the pocket contained no gun, no one would contend that a firearm specification would be proper. How can anyone say beyond a reasonable doubt both that Jeffers had a firearm, and that the firearm was operable? The law could say that the mention of a gun is sufficient for a firearm specification, but it does not so state. After State v. Thompkins7 I have concurred when witnesses at least saw a firearm,8 but I refuse to do so when no firearm was observed. I can abide only so much sophistry.9

. State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541.

. See, e.g., State v. Kersey (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 513, 706 N.E.2d 818.

. See State v. Green (1996), 117 Ohio App.3d 644, 655, 691 N.E.2d 316, 323 (Painter, P.J., dissenting).