DuBose v. McGuffey
| Decision Date | 04 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-1403 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 8 |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
| Parties | DuBose, Appellee, v. McGuffey, Sheriff, Appellant. |
Submitted December 15, 2021
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-210489 2021-Ohio-3815.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alex Scott Havlin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
{¶ 1} On October 27, 2021, the First District Court of Appeals granted a writ of habeas corpus ordering the reduction of petitioner-appellee Justin DuBose's bail from $1, 500, 000 to $500, 000. Respondent-appellant Charmaine McGuffey Hamilton County sheriff (hereafter, "the state") has appealed from that judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
{¶ 2} On July 18, 2020, Shawn Green was killed in an alleged robbery in Hamilton County. DuBose and a codefendant, Jamie Shelton, were charged with the crime. DuBose was indicted on two counts of murder, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary in case No. B 2005815-B. He was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, and returned to Ohio after waiving extradition.
{¶ 3} On November 5, 2020, a bail hearing took place in the Hamilton County Municipal Court. DuBose's attorney requested a "reasonable" bail, based on DuBose's limited financial means, ties to the community, and lack of a significant criminal record. The state asked for a bail amount of $1, 500, 000, to match the bail amount that a different judge had set for DuBose's codefendant. In support of the bail amount, the state asked the judge to consider the circumstances of the crime (Green was shot in the head after intruders-allegedly DuBose and Shelton-entered a home to rob its owner of marijuana) as well as the fact that DuBose allegedly fled to Nevada after the crime. The court set a bail of $750, 000 on the murder charge and a separate $750, 000 bail on the aggravated-robbery charge.
{¶ 4} On January 26, 2021, DuBose filed a motion for a bail reduction in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. A hearing on the motion was held on February 23, 2021. DuBose emphasized his limited resources, as well as his ties to the community and lack of a felony record, while the state again focused on the circumstances of the crime and DuBose's alleged flight risk. At the close of the hearing, the trial court stated:
The court then reduced the bail to $500, 000.
{¶ 5} The next day, however, the trial court restored the original bail amount because the court had failed to notify the victim's family of the bail hearing, as required by Marsy's Law, Article I, Section 10a, Ohio Constitution. On February 26, the parties again appeared before the trial court for a hearing on DuBose's motion for a bail reduction. The state presented new evidence-a photograph posted on Facebook showing DuBose with multiple firearms. The victim's grandmother was present for the second hearing. She told the trial court, She also reported that her daughter, the victim's mother, would be "scared to death if he gets out." The trial court concluded, "This additional information that I've received today changes the consideration that I had the other day." The court therefore overruled the motion to reduce the bail amount.
{¶ 6} On June 28, DuBose filed a second motion to reduce bail. On August 12, at the hearing on the motion, DuBose presented evidence that he had traveled commercially to Las Vegas, stayed in hotels under his own name, and posted updates about his whereabouts on Instagram, all to refute the suggestion that his trip to Las Vegas constituted flight. The state, on the other hand, offered a report from the Las Vegas police regarding DuBose's arrest. According to the state, the report indicates that when the police in Las Vegas initially approached DuBose (on an unrelated matter), he provided a counterfeit California identification card for "Kevin Polanski" and claimed to be Polanski.
{¶ 7} The trial court denied the second motion to reduce bail. It based its decision on three factors. First, the trial court noted that DuBose is facing serious criminal charges that will carry "significant mandatory prison time" if he is convicted. Second, the trial court "placed a lot of weight on" the statements of the victim's family member and "more importantly, the sentiment and the fear that the family member had." And third, the trial court observed that there is "no reasonable reason to use a fake identity," which DuBose had allegedly done in Las Vegas. In its decision, the trial court gave no weight to the state's allegation that DuBose had fled to Las Vegas. And the court discounted the state's argument that the possibility of future charges against DuBose in Las Vegas might make him unavailable for trial in this case.
{¶ 8} On September 22, DuBose filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the First District. After the state filed a response to the petition, the court of appeals granted the writ. The court of appeals held that bail in the amount of $1, 500, 000 was excessive because it did not take into consideration DuBose's financial resources, as required by Crim.R. 46(C)(4). 2021-Ohio-3815 at ¶ 27. As the court of appeals noted, the state did not dispute DuBose's claim that he and his family were unable to afford the $1, 500, 000 bail. Id. at ¶ 19. In the view of the court of appeals, "DuBose's high bail was effectively a denial of bail, without the trial judge making any of the required statutory findings" to hold a defendant without bail. Id. at ¶ 26. The court therefore granted DuBose's petition and reduced his bail to $500, 000, no 10 percent bond, but added several nonfinancial conditions, including that DuBose would be subject to 24-hour lockdown enforced by electronic monitoring, he could have no direct or indirect contact with the victim's family, and he had to surrender his passport. Id. at ¶ 29.
{¶ 9} The state appealed.
{¶ 10} "Bail is security for the appearance of an accused to appear and answer to a specific criminal * * * charge * * *." R.C. 2937.22(A). All persons are "bailable by sufficient sureties, except for a person who is charged with a capital offense where the proof is evident or the presumption great, and except for a person who is charged with a felony where the proof is evident or the presumption great and where the person poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community." Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Pretrial release not only makes it easier for an accused person to prepare a defense, it also upholds the presumption of innocence by ensuring that a person is not punished before being convicted. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951).
{¶ 11} The sole purpose of bail is to ensure a person's attendance in court. State ex rel. Sylvester v. Neal, 140 Ohio St.3d 47, 2014-Ohio-2926, 14 N.E.3d 1024, ¶ 16. State ex rel. Baker v. Troutman, 50 Ohio St.3d 270, 272, 553 N.E.2d 1053 (1990).
{¶ 12} Both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution prohibit excessive bail. Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution. A bail amount that is "higher than an amount reasonably calculated to" ensure the accused's presence in court is "excessive." Stack at 5. Habeas corpus is the proper vehicle by which to raise a claim of excessive bail in pretrial-release cases. Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 325, 744 N.E.2d 763 (2001). The burden of proof in an excessive-bail habeas petition is on the petitioner. Id. at 326.
{¶ 13} In this appeal, the state presents two propositions of law. Under its first proposition, the state contends that the court of appeals erred when it reviewed the trial court's bail decision de novo, rather than for an abuse of discretion. And under its second proposition of law, the state asserts that the court of appeals erred by discounting the statement by the victim's grandmother regarding her and her daughter's concern for their personal safety. The state's assertions do not have merit.
{¶ 14} Under its first proposition of law, the state argues that the court of appeals should have reviewed the trial court's bail determination for an abuse of discretion. The state asserts that de novo review of a trial court's bail determination is inconsistent with Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution and Crim.R. 46(B), both of which vest the trial court with discretion over bail determinations.
{¶ 15} In the exercise of its discretion under Crim.R. 46, a trial court may not impose bail that violates the constitutional prohibition against bail in an amount higher than an amount reasonably calculated to ensure the accused's presence in court. Stack, 342 U.S. at 5, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3. Whether a particular bail determination is unconstitutionally excessive is a question of law appropriate for de novo review.
{¶ 16} Moreover, we recently recognized that in an original habeas action, a court of appeals may receive new evidence and independently weigh the evidence to make its own bail determination. Mohamed v Eckelberry, 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 5. This is not to say...
To continue reading
Request your trial