In May 2016, Prince Bane the pit bull was accused of biting a woman's hand.

Prince Bane's owner, Joseph Jones, argued in court that a stray dog, not his Prince, actually bit the woman outside their shared Cincinnati apartment complex.

Alas, Jones was found guilty of failing to confine a dangerous dog, based on evidence that Prince had bitten before, according to documents filed with the Ohio Supreme Court.

But the First District Court of Appeals rejected the conviction because Prince had never formally been designated as "dangerous" in a court setting.

Ohio's highest court will soon settle the diverging interpretations regarding when it's safe to deem that a biting dog is, legally speaking, dangerous.

The Cincinnati City Solicitor's Office is contesting the appellate court's ruling, arguing that Ohio statute does not require a previous designation of "dangerous" to charge a dog owner with failing to confine a dangerous dog.

SUPPORT LOCAL JOURNALISM: Subscribe now for access to all our coverage

"Nowhere does (the state statute) say that a dog (which otherwise meets the statutory criteria) isn’t 'dangerous' until there is a hearing on that issue," wrote attorneys on behalf of the Cincinnati City Prosecutor, which handled the initial trial. "As such, a previous designation is not a statutory prerequisite."

At stake is whether the woman whose hand was bitten will receive restitution. Jones's initial conviction is a fourth-degree misdemeanor. But if he wins his appeal, it will be lowered to a minor misdemeanor, one that doesn't allow for paying recompense to the victim, according to court documents.

The attorneys also argued that notifying every owner of a dangerous dog in the state of Ohio would be impractical.

"(Jones) should have kept his dog, Prince Bane, on a leash," the attorneys continued. "The State introduced evidence that Prince Bane had bitten people and was trained to bite people and not let go."

David Hoffman, who is representing Jones, opposed that interpretation of the law.

"Mr. Jones could not have failed to confine a dangerous dog because his dog had not been designated to be a dangerous dog until the trial," Hoffman wrote. "(The pertinent state statute) has been lost on authorities in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, and other jurisdictions in Ohio."

Oral arguments in the Ohio Supreme Court are scheduled for May 8.