## Facts

- B. F. Glass, a real estate developer, purchased a tract of land that contained a small cemetery.
- The deed expressly excluded the cemetery from the conveyance, meaning Glass needed local township approval to use that portion of the land for development.
- The cemetery contained three headstones and a large rock used as a fourth marker.
- At least three of the burials were identified as more than 100 years old, and the bodies had totally decomposed by the time Glass acquired the land.
- Glass obtained a health permit authorizing removal of the buried remains and hired a licensed undertaker to disinter and reinter the remains in another cemetery.
- Glass also arranged and paid for the headstones/markers to be moved.
- After the removals, Glass sought township approval to build on the cemetery area; the township denied the request.
- The State indicted Glass for (1) grave robbing under Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.07 (unlawfully opening a grave or tomb and removing a “corpse” or “dead body”) and (2) unlawfully removing monuments, gravestones, or grave markers without lawful authority under Ohio Rev. Code § 155.03.
- Glass was convicted by a three-judge court and appealed, raising statutory-construction issues and additional claims of trial error.

## Issues

1. Whether an excavation remains a “grave” under Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.07 when the remains have decomposed so completely that they are no longer a “corpse” or “dead body.”
2. Whether reenactment of the grave-robbing statute creates a presumption that the legislature adopted earlier judicial constructions of the same language.
3. Whether Glass’s health permit or other circumstances gave her “lawful authority” to remove cemetery monuments or markers under Ohio Rev. Code § 155.03.

## Decision

- The court reversed the conviction for grave robbing under Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.07.
- It held that when human remains have decomposed to the point that they are no longer a “corpse” or “dead body,” the excavation is no longer a “grave” within the meaning of the grave-robbing statute, so the statutory elements were not met.
- The court applied the rule that reenactment of statutory language is presumed to carry forward prior judicial constructions of that language, absent a clear contrary legislative intent.
- The court affirmed the conviction under Ohio Rev. Code § 155.03 for removing monuments, gravestones, and grave markers without lawful authority, concluding that a permit to remove remains did not itself authorize removal of the cemetery markers.
- The court rejected Glass’s remaining assignments of error and left the § 155.03 conviction undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- An excavation ceases to be a “grave” for purposes of Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.07 when the human remains originally placed there have decomposed so completely that they no longer meet the statutory meaning of a “corpse” or “dead body.”
- When the legislature reenacts a statute that has received judicial construction, courts presume the legislature adopted that construction unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise.
- Authority to remove human remains under public-health processes does not automatically supply “lawful authority” to remove headstones or grave markers under Ohio Rev. Code § 155.03.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed Glass’s grave-robbing conviction because § 2923.07 required proof of opening a grave and removing a “corpse” or “dead body,” and fully decomposed remains did not satisfy those terms; the court relied on the presumption that reenacted statutory language retains earlier judicial meanings. At the same time, it affirmed Glass’s separate conviction for removing monuments and markers without lawful authority, concluding that her permit to relocate remains did not authorize moving the cemetery stones.


State of Ohio v. Glass, 273 N.E.2d 893, 52 A.L.R.3d 691 (1971)