## Facts

- Lafferty (defendant) was prosecuted in an Ohio Court of Common Pleas in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, reported at Tappan 113 (1817).
- A jury convicted Lafferty of selling “unwholesome provisions” (food unfit for consumption).
- After the verdict, Lafferty moved in arrest of judgment, seeking to prevent judgment from being entered on the conviction.
- Lafferty argued that no Ohio statute specifically prohibited the sale of unwholesome provisions.
- Lafferty acknowledged the conduct was an offense at English common law but contended Ohio’s constitution did not receive the common law as a source of criminal liability.
- Relying on Article III, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution, Lafferty argued the court’s criminal authority was limited to matters arising under Ohio statutory law.

## Issues

1. Whether an Ohio court could enter judgment for a common-law crime when the General Assembly had not enacted a statute defining or prohibiting the offense.
2. Whether Article III, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution limited the Court of Common Pleas to enforcing only statutory crimes, barring prosecution of common-law offenses.

## Decision

- The court denied Lafferty’s motion in arrest of judgment.
- The court allowed the conviction for selling unwholesome provisions to stand.
- The court treated the common law of crimes as part of the law administered in Ohio courts unless inconsistent with the constitution or displaced by statute.
- The court rejected Lafferty’s view that the constitutional jurisdiction language eliminated the court’s power to punish common-law offenses.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law offenses may be prosecuted and punished in Ohio courts unless the legislature has displaced them by statute or they conflict with the constitution.
- A constitutional grant of jurisdiction over cases arising under the “laws of this state” does not, by itself, confine criminal liability to statutes; received common-law rules can operate as law applied by the courts.
- Selling unwholesome provisions was treated as an indictable common-law misdemeanor aimed at public health, and the absence of a specific Ohio statute did not bar judgment.

## Conclusion

*Ohio v. Lafferty* held that Ohio trial courts could punish a defendant for selling unwholesome provisions as a common-law crime even without a statute on point, and that the Ohio Constitution’s jurisdictional language did not strip the Court of Common Pleas of authority to enter judgment on such a conviction.


Ohio v. Lafferty, Tappan 113 (1817)