State v. Kinney
| Decision Date | 13 October 1982 |
| Citation | 7 Ohio App.3d 243,455 N.E.2d 530 |
| Parties | , 7 O.B.R. 322 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. KINNEY, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the defendant picked up his fourteen-year-old girlfriend in Ohio and the two drove to defendant's trailer in Kentucky where they lived for six months, the act of "harbor[ing]," within the meaning of that term in R.C. 2919.23, began in Ohio when defendant allowed the girl to enter his automobile for the admitted purpose of giving her lodging, shelter or refuge.
Richard A. Castellini, City Sol., Paul J. Gorman, City Prosecutor, and Stephen J. Fagel, Cincinnati, for appellee.
Michael J. Wiethe, Cincinnati, for appellant.
This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the Hamilton County Municipal Court.
This timely appeal follows a bench trial wherein appellant was convicted of interference with custody, a violation of R.C. 2919.23.
The record reveals that appellant, Lloyd Michael Kinney, and his fourteen-year-old girlfriend planned to move to the state of Kentucky to live together in a trailer appellant had purchased. On February 13, 1981, appellant picked the girl up in Ohio and the two drove to the trailer in Kentucky where they lived for six months. The girl's parents did not know her whereabouts until appellant returned her six months later in a pregnant condition. 1 The parents had no knowledge of the plan.
Appellant's first assignment of error states:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant in determining that it had jurisdiction of the defendant in the subject matter before it."
R.C. 2919.23 states in pertinent part:
Appellant was charged in the complaint with violating R.C. 2919.23 by knowingly and without permission harboring a girl under eighteen years of age.
Jurisdiction in an Ohio criminal case is controlled by R.C. 2901.11, which states:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kelly, 7-92-14
...the culmination of the rape in Tennessee, Henry County, Ohio, has jurisdiction over the charge of rape. See State v. Kinney (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 243, 7 OBR 322, 455 N.E.2d 530; State v. Shrum (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 244, 7 OBR 323, 455 N.E.2d Appellant then argues that since he was found not......
-
State v. Shrum
...the accused picked up the minor female in Ohio and drove her to Kentucky where they lived together for six months. State v. Kinney (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 243, 455 N.E.2d 530. Appellant advances the argument that in this case, the act of abduction was consummated in Ohio before the rape was c......
-
State v. Jason J. Cory, 94-LW-5693
... ... permission to go to the apartment, and she in fact arrived at ... the apartment within moments of leaving Kramer's ... residence. The statute was not intended to apply to ... situations such as this. Cf. State v. Harris (1987), ... 11 Ohio App.3d 294; State v. Kinney (1982), 7 Ohio ... App.3d 243 ... Appellant did not entice, take, keep or harbor Garner from ... Kramer. Thus, appellant's conviction is against the ... manifest weight of the evidence. See State v. Jenks ... (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259. Accordingly, ... ...
-
State v. Wayne Kelly, 93-LW-2347
... ... sons. As there was a continuous, unbroken sequence of events ... from the time he forced Teresa to leave Napoleon until the ... culmination of the rape in Tennessee, Henry County, Ohio, has ... jurisdiction over the charge of rape. See, State v ... Kinney (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 243; State v ... Shrum (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 244 ... Appellant then argues that since he was found not guilty of ... kidnapping but guilty of the lesser included offense of ... abduction, he cannot be found guilty of rape. Once ... ...