McClain v. State

• Decision Date: 23 April 2021
• Docket Number: NO. C-200195,C-200195
• Citation: 171 N.E.3d 1228
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Parties: Anthony MCCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Ohio, Defendant-Appellee.

171 N.E.3d 1228

Anthony MCCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.STATE of Ohio, Defendant-Appellee.

NO. C-200195

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 23, 2021

Koenig & Owen, LLC, James D. Owen and Charles A. Koenig, Columbus, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Margaret Moore, Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION.

Myers, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Anthony McClain appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, following a bench trial, in favor of the state of Ohio on his statutory claim for a determination that he is a wrongfully imprisoned individual. The basis for McClain's appeal is his assertion that he was entitled to a trial by jury. Because McClain had no constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial, we hold that the trial court properly overruled his jury demand and we affirm the court's judgment.

I. Procedural History

{¶2} In 1995, McClain was indicted for murder and an accompanying firearm specification. After a jury trial, he was convicted of the offenses and was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life for the murder offense, to be served consecutively to a three-year prison term for the firearm specification. This court affirmed McClain's conviction on appeal, and the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to review the matter. State v. McClain , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-950859, 1996 WL 487931 (Aug. 28, 1996), jurisdictional motion overruled , 77 Ohio St.3d 1515, 674 N.E.2d 370 (1997).

{¶3} In 2002, McClain filed a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. In 2004, the trial court converted the motion for leave into a motion for a new trial and denied the motion. This court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial. State v. McClain , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-040647 (Aug. 17, 2005).¹ In 2006, at a retrial, a jury acquitted McClain of the offenses.

{¶4} McClain filed an action against the state of Ohio to be declared a "wrongfully imprisoned individual," as defined in R.C. 2743.48(A),² and included a jury demand in his complaint. The trial court overruled McClain's request for a jury trial, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial on the issue of whether McClain satisfied the condition in R.C. 2743.48(A)(5), by showing "either that the offense of which the individual was found guilty, including all lesser-included offenses, was not committed by the individual or that no offense was committed by any person." The court determined that McClain failed to prove that he was actually innocent of the murder offense and declined to declare McClain a wrongfully imprisoned individual. This appeal followed.

II. Right to a Jury Trial

{¶5} In a single assignment of error, McClain argues that the trial court erred by denying his constitutional and statutory rights to a jury trial in his wrongful-imprisonment action against the state.

{¶6} Article I, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution states that "[t]he right of trial by jury shall be inviolate[.]" However, the right to a jury trial is not absolute. Arrington v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 109 Ohio St.3d 539, 2006-Ohio-3257, 849 N.E.2d 1004, ¶ 22. The Constitution does not guarantee all civil litigants a trial by jury. Id. There is no right to a jury trial unless that right is extended by statute or existed at common law prior to the adoption of the Ohio Constitution. Kneisley v. Lattimer-Stevens Co. , 40 Ohio St.3d 354, 356, 533 N.E.2d 743 (1988).

III. The Wrongful-Imprisonment Statute

{¶7} The wrongful-imprisonment statute, R.C. 2743.48, allows a person who satisfies the definition of a wrongfully imprisoned individual to bring an action against the state in the court of claims to recover damages because of the person's wrongful imprisonment. R.C. 2743.48(D) ; Doss v. State , 135 Ohio St.3d 211, 2012-Ohio-5678, 985 N.E.2d 1229, ¶ 10. But first, the person must file a civil action to be declared a "wrongfully imprisoned individual," as defined in R.C. 2743.48(A), in the court of common pleas in the county where the underlying criminal action was initiated. See R.C. 2743.48(B)(1). That court has exclusive, original jurisdiction to hear and determine the action. R.C. 2305.02. "Only courts of common pleas have jurisdiction to determine whether a person has satisfied the five requirements of R.C. 2743.48(A)." Griffith v. Cleveland , 128 Ohio St.3d 35, 2010-Ohio-4905, 941 N.E.2d 1157, paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶8} R.C. 2743.48(A) defines a "wrongfully imprisoned individual" as an individual who satisfies each of the five following conditions:

(1) The individual was charged with a violation of a section of the Revised Code by an indictment or information, and the violation charged was an aggravated felony, felony, or misdemeanor.

(2) The individual was found guilty of, but did not plead guilty to, the particular charge or a lesser-included offense by the court or jury involved, and the offense of which the individual was found guilty was an aggravated felony, felony, or misdemeanor.

(3) The individual was sentenced to an indefinite or definite term of imprisonment in a state correctional institution for the offense of which the individual was found guilty.

(4) The individual's conviction was vacated, dismissed, or reversed on appeal and all of the following apply:

(a) No criminal proceeding is pending against the individual for any act associated with that conviction.

(b) The prosecuting attorney in the case, within one year after the date of the vacating, dismissal, or reversal, has not sought any further appeal of right or upon leave of court, provided that this division does not limit or affect the seeking of any such appeal after the expiration of that one-year period as described in division (C)(3) of this section.

(c) The prosecuting attorney, city director of law, village solicitor, or other chief legal officer of a municipal corporation, within one year after the date of the vacating, dismissal, or reversal, has not brought a criminal proceeding against the individual for any act associated with that conviction, provided that this division does not limit or affect the bringing of any such proceeding after the expiration of that one-year period as described in division (C)(3) of this section.

(5) Subsequent to sentencing or during or subsequent to imprisonment, an error in procedure was discovered that occurred prior to, during, or after sentencing, that involved a violation of the Brady Rule which violated the individual's rights to a fair trial under the Ohio Constitution or the United States Constitution, and that resulted in the individual's release, or it was determined by the court of common pleas in the county where the underlying criminal action was initiated either that the offense of which the individual was found guilty, including all lesser-included offenses, was not committed by the individual or that no offense was committed by any person. In addition to any other application of the provisions of this division regarding an error in procedure that occurred prior to, during, or after sentencing, as those provisions exist on and after the effective date of this amendment, if an individual had a claim dismissed, has a claim pending, or did not file a claim because the state of the law in effect prior to the effective date of this amendment barred the claim or made the claim appear to be futile, those provisions apply with respect to the individual and the claim and, on or after that effective date, the individual may file a claim and obtain the benefit of those provisions.

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2743.48(A).

{¶9} If the common pleas court determines that a person is a wrongfully imprisoned individual, then the person may file a civil action against the state in the court of claims to recover a sum of money because of the wrongful imprisonment. R.C. 2743.48(D). The court of claims has exclusive, original jurisdiction over such a civil action. Id. Upon presentation of the requisite proof to the court of claims, a wrongfully imprisoned individual is entitled to receive a sum of money as set forth in the statute. R.C. 2743.48(E)(2).

{¶10} "Because the legislature created the right to bring a wrongful-imprisonment action under R.C. 2743.48 in 1986, * * *, [such an action is] a special proceeding under R.C. 2505.02(A)(2)." State ex rel. O'Malley v. Russo , 156 Ohio St.3d 548, 2019-Ohio-1698, 130 N.E.3d 256, ¶ 21 ; R.C. 2505.02(A)(2) (defining "special proceeding" as one "that is specially created by statute and that prior to 1853 was not denoted as an action at law or a suit in equity").

IV. No Statutory Right to a Jury Trial

{¶11} The Supreme Court has explained, "when the General Assembly intends that a case may be tried by a jury, it has manifested its intent with appropriate language." State ex rel. Russo v. McDonnell , 110 Ohio St.3d 144, 2006-Ohio-3459, 852 N.E.2d 145, ¶ 46 (holding that the requirement in R.C. 2701.10 that the "judge" to whom a case is referred "try all of the issues in the action or proceeding" denies the judge the authority to conduct a jury trial); see Kneisley , 40 Ohio St.3d at 357, 533 N.E.2d 743 ("Absent ambiguity, statutory language is not to be enlarged or construed in any way other than that which its words demand.").

{¶12} The language of R.C. 2743.48 indicates that the General Assembly intended that a judge, and not a jury, should determine in the first instance whether a person was wrongfully imprisoned. R.C. 2743.48(B)(2) specifically provides that "the court of common pleas" is to make the determination that a person is a wrongfully imprisoned individual. To be so declared in this case, McClain was required to prove that he satisfied each of the five conditions in R.C. 2743.48(A), including the condition in (A)(5) that:

it was determined by the court of common pleas in the county where the underlying criminal action was initiated either that the

...