In In re E.L., the Eighth Appellate District declined to follow State v. Smith. In re E.L., 8th Dist. No. 90848, 2008 Ohio 5094, at P10-11. Instead of finding the plain language of the statute controlled, the Eighth District held Senate Bill 10 is ambiguous regarding the effective dates of the statutes. Id. at P11. To resolve the ambiguity, the court looked to the intent of the legislature and held "the legislation had no intention to repeal or amend the substantive elements of offenses such as rape or kidnapping, or the court's authority to oversee the criminal justice system." Id. Thus, the Eighth District held that there is no interruption between the repeal of the former versions of the statutes and the effective date of the revised statutes. Id. In support of its holding, the Eighth District stated "given the background of S.B. 10, and the context within which it must be read, we cannot conclude that the legislature intended to leave a six-month vacancy between repealing over 70 sections of the Revised Code and enacting the replacement amendments." Id. at P8. Also, the court quoted the following language from the Supreme Court of Ohio: "'"The General Assembly will not be presumed to have intended to enact a law producing unreasonable or absurd consequences. It is the duty of the courts, if the language of a statute fairly permits or unless restrained by the clear language thereof, so to construe the statute as to avoid such a result."'" Id.