WRITING MANUAL - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

officer was engaged in his official duties at the time of the
felonious assault.
{ 17} Resolution of this question requires nothing more
than a simple review of the statute. The specification at issue in
this case provides that if the victim of the assault is a peace
officer, felonious assault is a felony of the first degree. R.C.
2903.11(D)(1)(a). The specification incorporates by reference
the definition of “peace officer” in R.C. 2935.01. Under that
definition, “peace officer” includes a “member of the organized
police department of any municipal corporation.” R.C.
2935.01(B).
{ 18} Doe contends that at the time of the offense, Smith
was not a peace officer, as he was not engaged in his official
duties. The court of appeals agreed with Doe, reversed the
specification conviction, and remanded for resentencing.
{ 19} Smith is a police officer employed by the city of
Anytown. Although he was off duty and out of uniform when he
was attacked, neither the definition of “peace officer” nor the
specification itself requires that the officer be engaged in his
official duties or in uniform for the specification to apply. State
v. Shaw, 000 Ohio App.3d 999, 2008-Ohio-0000, 000 N.E.2d
999, 19 (3d Dist.).
{ 20} Our conclusion is buttressed by the fact that a similar
specification in another assault statute does expressly require that
the officer be engaged in his official duties at the time of the
assault. See R.C. 2903.13(C)(3) (specification for simple assault
applies if offense occurs while officer is “in the performance of
[his] official duties”). Had the legislature intended that factor to
be an element of the specification at issue, it could have included
that language. It did not, and we will not add it.
{ 21} The court of appeals erred in reversing Doe’s
conviction of the “peace officer” specification under R.C.
2903.11(D)(1)(a). The evidence established that Smith was a
police officer at the time of the assault. No more is required.
Sets forth legal
principles and
identifies sources of
principles
(constitutions, statutes,
case law, etc.).
Explains parties’
arguments.
Applies legal
principles to facts and
articulates rationale.
Further articulates
rationale.
Identifies error and
explains flaw.
V. Conclusion
{ 22} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is
affirmed in part and reversed in part. That portion of the
judgment upholding Doe’s conviction of felonious assault is
affirmed, while the portion reversing his conviction under R.C.
2903.11(D)(1)(a) and remanding for resentencing is reversed.
The judgment of the trial court is reinstated.
Judgment affirmed in part
and reversed in part.
States disposition,
explains which portion
of the judgment is
affirmed and which is
reversed. See pages
149-151 for examples
of dispositions.
The Supreme Court of Ohio 138 Writing Manual