
    The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Cole, Appellee.
    [Cite as State v. Cole, 124 Ohio St.3d 98, 2009-Ohio-6411.]
    (Nos. 2009-0030 and 2009-0315
    Submitted November 18, 2009
    Decided December 10, 2009.)
   {¶ 1} The certified question in case No. 2009-0315 is answered by our opinion in State v. Cargile, 123 Ohio St.3d 343, 2009-Ohio-4939, 916 N.E.2d 775.

{¶ 2} There is no indication in the court of appeals’ opinion below whether the defendant was warned that bringing contraband into the detention facility would result in additional charges or whether the defendant affirmatively denied possessing any such material. However, whether a warning by an officer and a denial of possession of contraband by the defendant are required prior to a conviction for illegal conveyance was not a consideration before this court in State v. Cargile. Accordingly, in order to give the parties the opportunity to consider these factors, case No. 2009-0030 is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of State v. Cargile and consideration of whether the absence of both an officer’s warning and the defendant’s denial of possession of contraband, if applicable, would alter the result below.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thorin Freeman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Andrew J. King, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

O’Donnell, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  