State v. Broughton

21 Citing cases

  1. State v. Jones

    2013 Ohio 4775 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

    A charging instrument such as a complaint serves this purpose. See State v. Neese, 114 Ohio App.3d 93, 95, 682 N.E.2d 1038 (12th Dist.1996); State v. Broughton, 51 Ohio App.3d 10, 11, 553 N.E.2d 1380 (12th Dist.1988). {¶15} Crim.R. 3 more specifically sets forth the requirements of a complaint.

  2. State v. Mitchell

    2011 Ohio 2465 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

    Contrary to section 2921.331, Revised Code, State of Ohio[.]" {¶ 16} Similar facts occurred in State v. Broughton (1998), 51 Ohio App.3d 10, where defendant argued the complaint against her was defective because it failed to designate the statutory subsection with which she was charged, i.e., either R.C. 2917.11(B)(1) or (B)(2). However, this court found the complaint's "substance was sufficient to inform appellant that she was charged with a violation of R.C. 2917.11(B)(1)."

  3. State v. Ruggles

    2024 Ohio 3128 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    {¶ 28} A complaint that alleges an offense in the language of the statute on which the offense is based is sufficient to satisfy the essential-elements requirement in Crim.R. 3. State v. Gerding, 1998 WL 666950, *2 (6th Dist. Sept. 30, 1998), citing State v. Broughton, 51 Ohio App.3d 10, 11 (12th Dist. 1988); accord Wheeler at ¶ 7 ("[generally, the requirements of a complaint or indictment may be met by reciting the language of the criminal statute"), citing State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 194, 199 (2000), citing State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 583 (1992). "It is well-settled under Ohio law that a charging instrument affords adequate notice to the accused if it tracks the language of the statute."

  4. State v. Yantis

    2023 Ohio 3820 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    {¶ 24} Generally speaking, "a defendant cannot be convicted of a charge not contained in the complaint or indictment." Cleveland v. Jenkins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 80758, 2002-Ohio-6046, ¶ 15, citing State v. Broughton, 51 Ohio App.3d 10, 553 N.E.2d 1380 (12th Dist. 1988); State v. Myers, 119 Ohio App.3d 642, 646, 695 N.E.2d 1226 (12th Dist. 1997).

  5. State v. Kelly

    2022 Ohio 1696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    "[T]he purpose of a criminal complaint is to inform the accused of the identity and essential facts constituting the offense charged." State v. Broughton, 51 Ohio App.3d 10, 11, 553 N.E.2d 1380 (12th Dist.1988); State v. Hadley, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-09-007, 2009-Ohio-4595, ¶ 8 ("The purpose of a criminal complaint is to inform the accused of the crime for which he is charged."). Here, the essential facts constituting the offense of obstructing official business were that appellant failed to provide his driver's license and insurance.

  6. In re J.C.

    2022 Ohio 850 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    State v. Montoya, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210154, 2021-Ohio-3429, ¶ 4, quoting State v. Broughton, 51 Ohio App.3d 10, 11, 553 N.E.2d 1380 (12th Dist.1988).

  7. State v. Montoya

    2021 Ohio 3429 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

    {¶4} The purpose of accusatory instruments like criminal complaints is "to inform the accused of the identity and the essential facts constituting the offense charged." State v. Broughton, 51 Ohio App.3d 10, 11, 553 N.E.2d 1380 (12th Dist.1988). Put differently, a criminal complaint provides the defendant notice of the charges against him so that he may prepare a defense.

  8. Estate of Ciotto v. Hinkle

    2019 Ohio 3809 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 11 times
    Finding no duty to secure firearm where son had taken his mother's handgun on two occasions a year before the murder

    R.C. 2901.03(A). Although an act cannot be criminal unless defined as an offense by the legislature, it is axiomatic that an act need not be criminal before it may be actionable in tort . SeeState v. Broughton , 51 Ohio App.3d 10, 553 N.E.2d 1380 (12th Dist.1988) fn. 2, citing Keeton, Dobbs, Keeton & Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts , Section 2, 7-8, (5 Ed.1984) ("What may be a crime need not be a tort and what is a tort need not be a crime."). {¶ 109} These criminal statutes say nothing of one's civil , common-law liability for harm that results when a gun owner fails to exercise the degree of care that an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances when acting to store one's firearm.

  9. State v. Walston

    2019 Ohio 1699 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Under such circumstances, the exact statutory language is not required. Doans at ¶ 9 ; State v. Broughton , 51 Ohio App.3d 10, 11, 553 N.E.2d 1380 (12th Dist.1988). {¶ 18} Accordingly, we find the complaint adequately invoked subject-matter jurisdiction in the municipal court, and Walston's first assignment of error is overruled.

  10. State v. Florence

    2014 Ohio 2337 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    {¶ 22} "The purpose of a criminal complaint is to inform the accused of the identity and essential facts constituting the offense charged." State v. Stefanopoulos, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-10-187, 2012-Ohio-4220, ¶ 21, citing State v. Broughton, 51 Ohio App.3d 10, 11 (12th Dist.1988). The failure to allege a specific subsection does not render the complaint defective.