City of Columbus v. Spingola
Ohio Court of Appeals
144 Ohio App. 3d 76 (2001)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
An organization that served the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community obtained permission to fly the rainbow flag on the Ohio Statehouse lawn as part of a gay-pride celebration. Charles Spingola (defendant) protested on the statehouse lawn, climbed the flagpole, and cut down the rainbow flag. Spingola was charged with ethnic intimidation and the predicate offense of criminal damaging. Spingola testified at trial that he believed homosexuality was a sin. Spingola knew in advance that the rainbow flag would be flying but did not pursue alternative ways to remove the flag. The trial court denied Spingola’s request that the jury be instructed that the elements of necessity are that the act charged was done to prevent a significant harm, there was no adequate alternative, and the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. Spingola was convicted of the lesser included offense of criminal damaging. Spingola argued on appeal that the trial court should have given Spingola’s requested jury instruction on the defense of necessity.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.