DocketNumber: No. 98AP-1477.
Judges: BOWMAN, J.
Filed Date: 9/14/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On August 30, 1998, defendant-appellee, Steven B. Clipner, was charged with domestic violence, a violation of R.C.
Appellee pled not guilty and the matter was set for trial on October 22, 1998. On that date, the prosecution requested a continuance until October 29, 1998, in order to personally serve Jorda Clipner with a subpoena. On October 29, 1998, the defense renewed its motion to dismiss because the victim had again failed to appear for trial. The prosecution objected to the motion to dismiss and informed the trial court that it was ready to proceed without the testimony of the victim. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and the state has appealed, raising the following assignments of error:
APPELLANT'S FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
APPELLANT'S SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORTHE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT BY DISMISSING THE CHARGES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ASSAULT OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE PROSECUTION, BASED SOLELY UPON THE NON-APPEARANCE OF THE VICTIM ON THE TRIAL DATE IN VIOLATION OF OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION
1901.20 (a)(2).
APPELLANT'S THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORTHE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE CHARGES AGAINST THE APPELLEE, OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE PROSECUTION, WHEN THE COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FIVE FACTORS ARTICULATED BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT IN STATE V. BUSCH (1996), 76 OHIO ST. 3d 613.
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE CHARGES AGAINST THE APPELLEE, OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE PROSECUTOR AND PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL RULE 48(B), WHEN THE COURT FAILED TO FIND EITHER THAT A DEPRIVATION OF DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND/OR STATUTORY RIGHTS EXISTED OR THAT THE DISMISSAL SERVED THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
By the first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the charges against appellee over the objection of the state, based solely upon the non-appearance of the victim. Appellant contends that R.C.
(2) A judge of a municipal court does not have the authority to dismiss a criminal complaint, charge, information, or indictment solely at the request of the complaining witness and over the objection of the prosecuting attorney, village solicitor, city director of law, or other chief legal officer who is responsible for the prosecution of the case.
This section prohibits a trial court from dismissing a complaint, over the objection of the prosecutor solely at the request of the complaining witness. The most recent enactments of the Ohio General Assembly "evince the plain intention of the General Assembly to provide prosecutors, on behalf of the state, the discretion to proceed with a domestic violence complaint without the active participation of, and perhaps even in the face of open opposition from, the victim. R.C.
R.C.
By the second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges over its objection when the court failed to consider the five factors articulated by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Busch (1996),
Appellant argues, and the court in Hogan found, thatBusch was, in effect, overruled by R.C.
By the third assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges, pursuant to Crim.R. 48(B), when the court failed to find either that a deprivation of appellee's constitutional and/or statutory rights existed or that the dismissal served the interests of justice. Crim.R. 48(B) provides:
(B) Dismissal by the court
If the court over objection of the state dismisses an indictment, information, or complaint, it shall state on the record its findings of fact and reasons for the dismissal.
In State v. Sutton (1979),
For the foregoing reasons, appellant's three assignments of error are sustained, and the judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court is reversed, and this cause is remanded to that court with instructions to reinstate the case on its docket.
BROWN, J., and LAZARUS, P.J., concur.