State v. Haddix
| Decision Date | 18 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. CA93-06-113,CA93-06-113 |
| Citation | 92 Ohio App.3d 221,634 N.E.2d 690 |
| Parties | , RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 8663 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. HADDIX, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
John F. Holcomb, Butler County Pros. Atty., and John J. McCracken, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Richard J. Wessel and Fred Miller, Hamilton, for appellant.
On October 21, 1992, defendant-appellant, Huel Haddix, was indicted by the Butler County Grand Jury on one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, five counts of receiving stolen property, and one count of possession of a motor vehicle or part thereof with a concealed identity in violation of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1), 2913.51, and 4549.62(D)(1).
Appellant moved to suppress evidence seized by police during a search of his residence. Appellant also moved to dismiss his indictment for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The trial court denied both motions. In May 1993, appellant entered a no contest plea. The trial court convicted appellant of all of the offenses on which he was indicted. Appellant now appeals, setting forth the following assignments of error:
In his first assignment of error, appellant challenges the constitutionality of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1), which provides:
"No person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise shall conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity or the collection of an unlawful debt."
Appellant first argues that R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) is unconstitutional because it does not set forth a specific degree of mental culpability. We disagree. The mens rea necessary to establish the offense of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity is the same as that of the individual predicate offenses with which the defendant is charged. State v. Thrower (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 359, 371-372, 575 N.E.2d 863, 871-872. Therefore, appellant's contention that R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) is unconstitutional because it fails to specify a separate degree of mens rea is without merit.
Appellant next argues that R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) is unconstitutionally vague. The relevant inquiry an appellate court must engage in when reviewing a claim that a criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague is whether the statute is so imprecise and indefinite that persons of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application. Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co. (1926), 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322, 328; South Euclid v. Richardson (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 147, 150, 551 N.E.2d 606, 608. To withstand a challenge that it is unconstitutionally vague, a criminal statute need only give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited. Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 227; State v. Mollenkopf (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 210, 210, 8 OBR 281, 281, 456 N.E.2d 1269, 1269.
R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) prohibits a person from participating in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity. R.C. 2923.31 further defines "enterprise," "pattern of corrupt activity," and "corrupt activity" with narrow specificity. When read together, R.C. 2923.31 and 2923.32(A)(1) provide fair and adequate notice of the nature of the prohibited conduct. Thrower, supra, 62 Ohio App.3d at 375, 575 N.E.2d at 873. Accordingly, we conclude that these statutes are not void for vagueness. Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
In his second assignment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller
...court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a pretrial motion where no hearing is requested. State v. Haddix (1994), 92 Ohio App.3d 221, 223, 634 N.E.2d 690, 691; State v. Feltner (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 279, 283, 622 N.E.2d 15, 16; State v. McClure (June 14, 1985), Highland A......
-
State v. Murnahan
...or cases that concern motions to suppress evidence (Hudson v. South [1994], 99 Ohio App.3d 208, 650 N.E.2d 172; State v. Haddix [1994], 92 Ohio App.3d 221, 634 N.E.2d 690), neither issue being present in the case sub judice. The argument that Murnahan's counsel is to be faulted for failing ......
-
State v. Haddix
...position taken by the state and the trial court in the case at bar. This is also the position this court took in State v. Haddix (1994), 92 Ohio App.3d 221, 634 N.E.2d 690, when it held that the failure of R.C. 2923.32 to specify a degree of mens rea over and above that required to prove th......
-
The State v. Brian L. Miller
... ... However, the record reflects that ... at no point in the proceedings below did appellant request a ... hearing on the motion. A trial court is not required to ... conduct an evidentiary hearing on a pretrial motion where no ... hearing is requested. State v. Haddix (1994), 92 ... Ohio App.3d 221, 223; State v. Feltner (1993), 87 ... Ohio App.3d 279, 283; State v. McClure (June 14, ... 1985), Highland App. No. CA-537, unreported. As the record ... shows that appellant never requested a hearing on his motion ... to sever, we ... ...