Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Rebholz
Citation: 2014 Ohio 2429Docket: C-130636
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; June 6, 2014; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Andrew Rebholz was charged with criminal child enticement under R.C. 2905.05(A) and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him. The trial court denied this motion, leading to a bench trial where Rebholz was found guilty and sentenced. On appeal, Rebholz claimed that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, asserting that R.C. 2905.05 was overbroad and unconstitutional. The appellate court found merit in this argument, referencing the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Romage, which declared R.C. 2905.05(A) unconstitutional due to its overbreadth, encompassing substantial amounts of constitutionally protected activity. Citing the doctrine of stare decisis, the appellate court was compelled to follow the Supreme Court's decision. As a result, the court sustained Rebholz's assignment of error, reversed the trial court's judgment, vacated his conviction, and ordered his discharge from further prosecution. The judges concurred with this decision.