In State v. Worsencroft (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 255, 653 N.E.2d 746, the Tenth District Court of Appeals considered whether a Crim. R. 29(A) acquittal of charges against a sole proprietorship bars the subsequent conviction of the owner, individually, on the same charges. Unlike in the case before us, the State conceded in Worsencroft that a sole proprietorship "does not qualify as an 'organization' for purposes of organizational criminal liability within the scope of 2901.23." 100 Ohio App.3d at 259. Noting this fact, the Tenth District went on to observe that: "As a threshold matter, we agree with the trial court's resolution of this issue. While on its face the statute is arguably drafted broadly enough to encompass a sole proprietorship under the 'other commercial or legal entity' language, we do not believe that the statute is aimed at imposing an additional form of criminal liability upon the individual business owner. The paucity of case law regarding prosecutions brought against sole proprietorships under R.C. 2901.23 further suggests the problematic nature of indicting them separately, as opposed to indicting the business owner 'doing business as' a sole proprietor." Id. at 259.