The Ohio Supreme Court is constrained by stare decisis except when it decides it is not.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "stare decisis" as "The doctrine of precedent, under which it is necessary for a court to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation." Stare decisis gives some uniformity and predictability to the law. The problem in Ohio is that the Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether stare decisis applies, thereby defeating the purpose of stare decisis.
When the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County heard Steven Johnson's appeal, the Court saw that he was convicted of violating R.C. 2923.13(A)(3). The Court of Appeals found Johnson's situation to be identical to that of Howard Clay who had been convicted of violating R.C. 2923.13(A)(3). State v. Clay, 2008-Ohio-6325. In Clay's case, the Ohio Supreme Court decided on September 17, 2008, that R.C. 2901.21(B) applied to R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) and that the mental state of recklessness was required for proof of a violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3). Naturally, the Court of Appeals in Johnson's case applied what the Ohio Supreme Court stated in the Clay case and reversed Johnson's conviction.
But today the Ohio Supreme Court changed its mind and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision in the case of State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-6301. It states that "our use of R.C. 2901.21(B) has been imprecise." Now the Court says that R.C. 2901.21(B) does NOT apply to R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) at all and so the mental state of recklessness is NOT required for proof of a violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3).
So what is the law, you ask? It is what the Ohio Supreme Court says it is. We'll know when we get their decision.
Check out the oral argument in State v. Clay here, and the Ohio Supreme Court decision in Clay here.
Check out the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Johnson here.
Check out the oral argument in State v. Johnson here, and the Ohio Supreme Court decision here.
