31 N.E.3d 763 (Ohio Mun. 2015), 2014 CRB 028725, City of Cleveland v. Castro

Docket Nº:: 2014 CRB 028725
Citation:31 N.E.3d 763
Opinion Judge:JUDGE EMANUELLA GROVES.
Party Name:CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff v. PEDRO CASTRO, Defendant
Attorney:For City of Cleveland: Karyn J. Lynn, Assistant Police Prosecutor. For Pedro Castro, Defendant: Oscar E. Rodriguez, Attorney.
Case Date:March 19, 2015
Court:Municipal Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 763

31 N.E.3d 763 (Ohio Mun. 2015)

CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff

v.

PEDRO CASTRO, Defendant

No.: 2014 CRB 028725

Cleveland Municipal Court, Ohio

March 19, 2015

For City of Cleveland: Karyn J. Lynn, Assistant Police Prosecutor.

For Pedro Castro, Defendant: Oscar E. Rodriguez, Attorney.

Page 764

JUDGMENT ENTRY

JUDGE EMANUELLA GROVES.

The defendant Pedro Castro was charged with aggravated menacing and obstruction of official business, under Cleveland Codified Ordinances (hereinafter " CCO" ) 621.06 and 615.06, respectively. On January 22, 2015, the aggravated menacing charge was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the complaining witness's failure to appear. The defendant was then tried on the charge of obstruction of official business, with Cleveland Police Department Ptl. Tersin testifying. The case was heard and submitted for the court to have an opportunity to research the question whether refusal to submit to a deoxyribonucleic acid (" DNA" ) test pursuant to R.C. 2903.07 constitutes obstruction of official business, in violation of CCO 615.06.

The underlying facts of the case are quite simple. The defendant was arrested for a felony offense as well as a misdemeanor offense of aggravated menacing. Due to the felony charge, the defendant was asked to submit to a DNA test during the booking process as required by R.C. 2901.07(B)(1)(a). The defendant refused to submit to the test. As a result of the refusal, the defendant was charged with obstruction of official business.

Before addressing the obstruction charge, it is important to examine the DNA testing statute. R.C. 2901.07(B)(1)(a) states in pertinent part " ...a person who is eighteen years of age

Page 765

or older and who is arrested...for a felony offense shall submit to a DNA specimen collection procedure...." Interestingly, the DNA test requirement does not include any prohibition language such as, " No person shall refuse to submit to a DNA test." Additionally, the statute does not include a penalty section. No consequence for failure to comply with the DNA testing requirement is set forth. Failure to comply with the requirement does not constitute an offense. Finally, the DNA testing requirement is placed in the General Provision section of Title 29, " Crimes - Procedure," of the Revised Code.

This court is aware of one other statute that requires a person to submit to a physical...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP