949 N.E.2d 603 (Ohio Mun. 2010), 10-CRB-00714, State v. Kent

Docket Nº:10-CRB-00714.
Citation:949 N.E.2d 603, 163 Ohio Misc.2d 18, 2010-Ohio-6995
Opinion Judge:MCILVAINE, Judge.
Party Name:The STATE of Ohio v. KENT, Defendant.
Attorney:Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Page C. Schrock, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff. David Hilson, for defendant.
Case Date:December 20, 2010
Court:Municipal Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 603

949 N.E.2d 603 (Ohio Mun. 2010)

163 Ohio Misc.2d 18, 2010-Ohio-6995

The STATE of Ohio

v.

KENT, Defendant.

No. 10-CRB-00714.

Wadsworth Municipal Court, Ohio.

December 20, 2010

Page 604

Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Page C. Schrock, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff.

David Hilson, for defendant.

MCILVAINE, Judge.

[163 Ohio Misc.2d 19] {¶ 1} This matter came before the court pursuant to defendant's motion to dismiss. Following oral arguments, the court took the matter under advisement. Each party had previously filed legal briefs setting forth their positions.

{¶ 2} Let me start by stating that this court feels that the state of Ohio's argument makes perfect sense. Because of strong-safety issues and to combat the war on drugs, the state of Ohio has enacted certain laws that prohibit and limit the sale of pseudoephedrine products to the public. Legislators created R.C. Chapter 2925, which limits the sale of pseudoephedrine products to no more than nine grams in any 30-day period, prevents the sale of pseudoephedrine products to someone under the age of 18, and also requires the store or organization to maintain a log book. In this case, the state of Ohio contends that the defendant is an employee of a retailer/organization that sells pseudoephedrine products. As part of her job description, she was responsible for maintaining the log book as required under the law. She failed to do that properly, and therefore the state argues that she should be held accountable for her actions. There is also a long-standing statute in the state of Ohio that an individual wrongdoer should not be able to hide behind a corporate veil and avoid prosecution. If a corporation has a responsibility and an individual acting on behalf of that corporation violates that responsibility, then the individual should be held accountable. This argument is logical, reasonable, and makes perfect sense to this court. However, this case gets more complicated when you add in the law.

{¶ 3} This case involves a violation of R.C. 2925.56. That section is titled Unlawful Sale of Pseudoephedrine Product. That section provides three violations of the law. Subsection A makes it unlawful to sell within a period of 30 consecutive days an amount of pseudoephedrine product that is greater than nine grams. Subsection B provides that you may not sell a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP