State v. Towe
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. TOWE, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Towe (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Criminal procedure Classification as sexual predator Court of appeals judgment affirmed on authority of State v. Cook APPEAL dismissed as improvidently allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V. (Nos. 98-604 and 98-606 Submitted October 13, 1998 Decided November 25, 1998.) APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C970283. __________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sherry Green, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Schuh & Goldberg and J. Robert Andrews, for appellant. __________________ The judgment of the court of appeals on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II is affirmed on the authority of State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570. Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V are dismissed as having been improvidently allowed. DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in part and dissent in part. __________________ Cook, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I dissent from the dismissal of Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V. MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
