State v. Hardie
Ohio Court of Appeals
141 Ohio App. 3d 1, 749 N.E.2d 792 (2001)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Mary Hardie (plaintiff) repeatedly sexually assaulted two of her 14-year-old male relatives. During the assaults, Hardie provided her victims with alcohol but did not use or threaten violence. The assaults involved both oral and penetrative conduct. Hardie continued to sexually abuse both boys until she was finally caught in the act. After Hardie was caught, she admitted knowing that her actions were wrong but placed the blame for her behavior on external factors and her poor self-esteem. Hardie had no prior criminal record. The State of Ohio (defendant) charged Hardie with two counts of corruption of a minor. At trial, the state presented expert testimony from Dr. James Harding. Dr. Harding applied the statutory recidivism factors and determined that Hardie was likely to continue sexually abusing minors. The trial court convicted Hardie, holding that Hardie was likely to reoffend and should be classified as a sexual predator. Hardie appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly classified her as a sexual predator.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kline, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
