A recent Court of Appeals opinion addressed the issue of whether a former prisoner has the burden to prove innocence to recover under the terms of the Ohio statute allowing “wrongfully imprisoned individuals” compensation for their time while imprisoned.
An individual accused of a crime and found to be wrongfully imprisoned is entitled to monetary damages pursuant to the terms of R.C. 2743.48 of the Ohio Revised Code. A “wrongfully imprisoned individual” is:
- An individual charged with a violation of the Revised Code by indictment or information of an aggravated felony or felony;
- Was found guilty of, but did not plead guilty to, the charge or lesser included offense and was found guilty of an aggravated felony or felony
- Was sentenced to an indefinite or definite term of imprisonment;
- The conviction was vacated, dismissed or reversed on appeal and the case cannot or will not be tried again;
- An error in procedure occurred or it was determined that the offenses were not committed by the individual or by others.
A failure to satisfy all five criteria excludes an individual from recovery.
In James v. State of Ohio, 2014 WL 201631, Omar James was convicted on one count, but no verdict was reached on three other counts. James was sentenced to 12 years for the conviction. At a retrial on the remaining counts, James represented himself at trial. The jury returned guilty verdicts on the remaining counts and James was sentenced to 13 years in prison on those convictions. James appealed, which was affirmed, then further appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the appeal.
James then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Federal Court granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus, which was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. The Federal Court found that James did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel at trial. A deadline was given to retry James, but the State declined. James moved to dismiss the remaining three counts of the indictment, which was granted by the court. James then brought a cause of action alleging that he was a “wrongfully imprisoned individual” pursuant to R.C. 2743.48(A).
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the State, resulting in James’ appeal to the Court of Appeal. It was stipulated that James satisfied the first three criteria, and the Court of Appeals reviewed the final two in detail.
Initially, the Court of Appeals first reviewed the 1993 case of Gover v. State, 67 Ohio St.3d 93, where a prior version of the statute included a requirement that the party seeking compensation be proved innocent. The more recent version, drafted in 2002, included a provision for an error in proceedings that led to the individual’s release. The Court of Appeals found that “the General Assembly provided an alternative to the condition that a claimant either had not committed the offense or that the offense had not been committed by any other person. In other words, a claimant no longer had to prove actual innocence in order to satisfy (5).”
The Court of Appeals found that James had satisfied all the criteria. The Court of Appeals separated the initial conviction from the first trial from the conviction on the remaining counts while representing himself in the second trial. The Court of Appeals also rejected two other State arguments related to the interpretation of the “procedural error”. Initially, the State argued that only structural errors could satisfy R.C. 2743.48(A)(5), which the Court rejected, then further rejected the State’s contention that the error in procedure occurred during trial, and therefore does not apply.
This decision places the State and potentially municipalities at risk to compensate any person who is imprisoned for a period of time and has the conviction overturned. Of particular concern are circumstances where multiple counts are brought, a conviction is had on one count, but a hung jury requires a subsequent retrial. Also of concern going forward would be the trial of cases by a pro se defendant. The habeas corpus in this particular case rested upon James’ failure, in the Federal Court’s eyes, to willingly and knowingly waive the assistance of counsel.
If you wish a copy of the opinion or have any questions with respect to governmental or public entity liability, feel free to contact one of our Governmental/Public Entity Liability Practice Group Members.