State v. Barrow

Summary

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals reversed the Hamilton County Municipal Court’s dismissal of three child-endangerment charges against Anthony Barrow. The court held that Cincinnati Municipal Code 915-3(a) was not preempted by Ohio’s firearms-uniformity statute, R.C. 9.68, although subsection (b), which defined negligent firearm storage as a substantial risk, had previously been invalidated. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with the trier of fact to determine whether Barrow’s firearm storage created a substantial risk to the children.

Holdings

1. Cincinnati Municipal Code 915-3(b) is preempted and nullified by R.C. 9.68, but Cincinnati Municipal Code 915-3(a) and (c) are not preempted. The ordinance therefore is not invalid in its entirety.
2. The State may bring charges under CMC 915-3(a), and those charges may relate to an offender's negligent storage of firearms.
3. The complaints sufficiently tracked CMC 915-3(a), and the trial court erred by dismissing them. The State must prove at trial that Barrow's firearm storage actually created a substantial risk to the health or safety of the children.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cincinnati Municipal Code 915-3 was preempted by Ohio's firearms-uniformity statute, R.C. 9.68, such that the child-endangerment charges had to be dismissed.
2. Whether the State could charge violations of Cincinnati Municipal Code 915-3(a) involving negligent firearm storage after Cincinnati Municipal Code 915-3(b) was held preempted.
3. Whether the complaints sufficiently charged violations of Cincinnati Municipal Code 915-3(a) notwithstanding their references to negligent firearm storage.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded