Posted on 11/18/2009 9:15:36 AM PST by buccaneer81
Supreme Court upholds felony conviction of man who smashed cell phone during assault Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:58 AM By Darrel Rowland THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Smashing a cell phone can be legally equivalent to flattening the tires of ambulance speeding to an emergency, a unanimous Ohio Supreme Court ruled this morning.
Both are potential violations of an Ohio law against disrupting public service said the justices in a first-of-its-kind ruling.
Raynell Robinson of Marysville was convicted of the fourth-degree felony for destroying a personal cell phone being used by his nephew, Antonio Robinson, to summon help after Raynell had assaulted Antonio during a late-night fight in 2007.
The 3rd District Court of Appeals threw out the conviction, saying the state law was intended to apply to large-scale disruptions of public service and not destruction of a single cell phone. But the high court reinstated it with today's decision.
"The plain language of (the law) does not limit its application to the interference with public emergency systems and utilities on a large scale, as the 3rd District found," wrote Justice Maureen O'Connor in the majority opinion.
She added that the law "does not contain any reference to the words 'public emergency systems' or 'utilities.' Thus, the 3rd District's interpretation that the statute does not apply to the destruction of a single private telephone or cellular telephone is not a sound reading of the plain language."
Raynell Robinson, 37, was sentenced to two years in prison for witness intimidation and 15 months for disrupting public services by wrecking the phone. His lawyer has contended Robinson was not guilty because help already was on the way from an earlier 911 call from the nephew, and arrived within minutes of the phone being destroyed.
But the law "does not require proof of a substantial impairment of the officers' response time. The pertinent inquiry is directed toward their ability to respond," O'Connor wrote.
"Antonio was only able to tell the 911 dispatcher that he was at the Meadows (apartment complex) and that his face had been injured. When Robinson smashed the phone and disconnected the call, the dispatcher was attempting to elicit a more specific location from Antonio. The importance of emergency-services personnel knowing a caller's exact location is critical so that police and medical responders can reach the location as quickly as possible.
"This is especially true in the case of a suspected assault, when the officers must reach the scene of the incident and clear it before they can allow emergency medical personnel to attend to the victim's injuries. It is additionally important for emergency personnel to reach the victim immediately to prevent further harm to the victim."
O'Connor said first responders had to search the apartment complex and ask neighbors before they found the fight scene. In the meantime, the uncle continued to assault his nephew, she said.
This is the first case in which Ohio's highest court has been asked to weigh in on whether the law applies to destroying a single cell phone as opposed to larger disruptions such as laying out spikes to flatten the tires of emergency vehicles or interrupting public utility services.
Better not yank the phone off the wall in the future.
Am wondering, was it a white man?
Excellent question.
The story doesn't say.
Probably the same race as the nephew he was beating up.
I'm pretty sure it will be after this decision. Overall it sounds reasonable, since it should be illegal to disrupt a person's ability to call 911 in order to further a crime. It'll make for a good pile-on charge in burglaries.
More to the point, will they apply it to someone, say a theater or restaurant manager, using a cellphone jammer?
I know; the jammers are already illegal, but as a pile-on charge....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.